Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRR25328 Emails Batch 21 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Friday, May 3, 2024 11:08 PM To:E-mail Council Website Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John; McDonald, Whitney; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn; Brett Cross; Hermann, Greg Subject:Illegal fraternities, Noise - What's being done?? Attachments:Cal Poly Fraternity Addresses w Documentation source.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello All, We continue to have a huge problem with dozens of illegal fraternities in our neighborhood and I'd like to know what steps are being taken by the city to stop their operation. Despite the laws in San Luis Obispo that prohibit fraternities in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods per the municipal code and zoning/land use regulations, we have experienced the proliferation of fraternity houses to such an extent that they occupy about 15% of the houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood. By their very nature, fraternities are noisy and disruptive, with regular parties that include loud music and screaming, increased traffic, and activities such as drinking games that involve chanting and yelling, etc. They also tend to keep nocturnal hours. Courts throughout our country have ruled that fraternities are distinctly different from residential dwellings, including boarding houses and apartments, for the reasons mentioned. And it is likely wh y San Luis Obispo's regulations do not allow fraternities to operate in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and require a Use Permit in R-3 and R-4 zones. The illegal fraternities operate as full-fledged fraternity houses and rob us of the quiet enjoyment on our property every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. My daughter and son-in-law live a block from Sinsheimer Park but are currently staying with us while their house is being remodeled, and they are astounded at the non- stop noise from fraternities around our home every weekend. The number of parties in our neighborhood has grown over the past few years as more illegal fraternities have moved into rental homes. You can't possibly understand how horrible it is unless you live through it, which we are forced to do because we can't move. It is a complete nightmare. Loud parties at illegal fraternity houses in SLO's R1 and R2 neighborhoods make up a large portion of the noise complaints to SLOPD each weekend, from Thursday to Sunday. Usually a SNAP officer is dispatched, even though city policy has SLOPD officers responding to fraternity houses and not a SNAP officer. Most of the time, SNAP officers do not cite fraternity parties, as shown by reviewing the historical records from the SLOPD dispatch log. From personal experience, my husband and I have witnessed a SNAP o fficer walk up to a party, tell a guy guarding the front door, "You need to turn that down" then walk away without consequence. The party hosts did not turn the music down and we ended up calling SLOPD three times that night for the same party. On multiple occasions, we've seen SNAP officers break up the parties but they do not cite them. Instead, they clear the parties on the SLOPD dispatch log as negative violations. This emboldens the fraternities to continue to throw loud fraternity parties. It's been a continual cycle with some fraternity houses in our neighborhood. It is intolerable to live under the conditions, with the loud fraternity parties we are forced to endure every weekend. There are 17 fraternities in Cal Poly's Interfraternity Council (IFC) and at least 75 fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo, including main chapter houses and satellite houses. Only seven of those 75 fraternity houses have Use 2 Permits and they are located in R3 and R4 zones. The Use Permits contain conditions for their operations, such as limiting occupancy and the hours of meetings and gatherings, regulation or prohibition of parties, parking plans, etc. The Use Permits state that they are overseen by the Community Development Director. The SLOMC and zoning ordinance does not allow fraternities to operate in R1 and R2 residential neighborhoods yet there are over 50 documented fraternity houses, including the main chapter houses, located in R1 and R2 residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. I've attached the addresses with the source of documentation to this email. Last year, I provided an extensive, detailed report with documentation of the addresses of Cal Poly's fraternities, including the illegal fraternities in our neighborhoods, to Community Development Director Timmi Tway and Code Enforcement Supervisor John Mezzapesa. I also provided them with a link to a report on Cal Poly's Greek Life web page that lists the locations of all "sanctioned events" held by fraternities, and verifies the illegal fraternity operations at addresses in our neighborhood. I want to point out that Cal Poly has a list of all fraternity houses each year, including satellite houses, but refused to provide that information to the city of SLO and to me, through a public records request. Previously, I contacted Cal Poly and the city about illegal fraternity operations. Cal Poly told me it was in the city limits and not their responsibility. When the city contacted some of the fraternities, they denied they were operating as fraternities even though the house was occupied exclusively by fraternity members and they had regular gatherings, including parties with sororities. Last year, Assembly Bill 524: The Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act required every college and university in California to publish a report annually with a list of the locations of their Greek Life activities. That's how we were able to cross-reference and verify the addresses of the illegal fraternities. It was not through any cooperation with Cal Poly. I think that's an important point and makes clear that the city needs to solve this problem rather than wait for "cooperation" from Cal Poly. Despite my report and verification of dozens of illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, the fraternities continue to operate and the noise on weekends is getting worse with the warmer weather. It is extremely unfair to the long-term residents and others who want peace that nothing has been done to rectify this known problem. Last weekend - 4/25 to 4/28- there were calls for loud parties at seven documented, illegal fraternities in our neighborhood. The weekend before last - 4/18 to 4/21 - there were calls for at least six documented, illegal fraternities although they were not all the same addresses as last weekend. I will cover just one of those fraternities cited last weekend in this email and will continue to follow up with information about the other fraternities so that you can better understand the situation for the residents. This week I will address 301 Hathway, Sigma Nu, which is in an R-2 zone, bordering a R-1 zone to the north. The house two doors up is where the R-1 zone begins. 301 Hathway - Sigma Nu Sigma Nu has occupied 301 Hathway for several years and is a known fraternity house by SLOPD. It has received multiple citations including an unruly gathering during St. Frattys on 3/18/2023. Below is the history of calls to SLOPD for the academic years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, with blue lines dividing the academic school years. 3 The noise complaints to SLOPD increased with each academic year. The fraternity received a citation on 5/20/2023, which places them on the "no warning" list for 9 months or until 2/20/2024. A property on the "no warning" list is not allowed to register a party through SLOPD's Party Registration Program and is also not eligible for a response from SNAP or a zero-fine Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC). If someone calls SLOPD for a noisy party for an address that is on the "no warning" list, it requires a police response and a citation with a fine is supposed to be issued if there is a verified noise violation. NOTE: Permitted fraternity houses are ALWAYS on the "no warning" list. Therefore, those fraternities that are operating illegally are able to circumvent the system of accountability set up by the city of SLO for fraternity houses. At the beginning of the academic year 2023-2024, SLOPD apparently removed 301 Hathway from the "no warning list" which cleared the way for the fraternity to register parties through SLOPD before 2/20/2024 (9 months from their last citation) and having SNAP respond to noise complaints with a DAC issued instead of SLOPD issuing a citation if there is a noise violation. The Party Registration Program is like a get-out-of-jail-free situation. When a property registers a party through SLOPD, and someone calls to complain about the loud party, there is no police response to the party regardless of the reported size or disturbance. Instead, a SLOPD dispatcher calls the party host and gives them 20 minutes to quiet down. Sigma Nu registered a party through SLOPD for 10/21/2023. Someone called to complain about the noisy party and there was no police response but SLOPD dispatch called the fraternity to tell them they have 20 minutes to quiet down. The dispatch log shows a number instead of a name for the "Responsible Officer", identifies the dispatcher call as "COM8" under "Units", and the noise complaint is cleared as "No Report". If SLOPD had not prematurely removed the address from the "no warning" list, the fraternity would not have been eligible to register the party and the noise complaint would have required SLOPD response because the property had received a citation only five months earlier. Addresses stay on the "no warning" list for nine months after they are issued a noise citation. It doesn't make sense that this known fraternity was allowed to be removed from the no warning list. SLOPD set up the Early Removal Program that allows property owners to be removed from the "no warning" list if they fill out a form stating that they have a complete tenant turnover. But fraternity houses that occupy the same property year after year should not be allowed to escape accountability by claiming to have a turnover of tenancy. Notably, the property owners are also fined for noise citations, so they have an incentive to claim that there is a tenant turnover at their property because they revert to zero-fine DACs and eliminate the liability of progressive fines that are associated with noise citations. There is also no clause on the Early Removal form that requires the property to certify under penalty of perjury, which also should be required. Also, documented fraternity houses should not be allowed to use the early removal loophole. On Monday, 1/29/2024, Sigma Nu posted on their social media pages that they were hosting three live bands at their fraternity house at 301 Hathway on Friday 2/2/2024. 4 Again, they registered their party through SLOPD's Party Registration Program . The city's webpage Party Registration states, in bold font "***NO LIVE BANDS OR DJs PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.*** On Friday night, 2/2/2024, our family could hear a live band from a house nearby. I walked down to find the address and called SLOPD at 9:28 p.m. to report the live band and loud party at 301 Hathway. As I was walking home, a SLOPD dispatcher left a message on my cell phone saying: "They're registered with the city to have a party tonight so I gave them a warning. They have 20 minutes to turn down the noise..." Apparently, the police dispatcher did not know that parties with live bands are against the municipal code and are not allowed to register their parties through the city's program. I called her back at 9:33 p.m. to explain that live bands aren't allowed to register their parties and SLOPD should respond. Instead of sending a SLOPD officer because of the reported live band, she sent SNAP officer, Jeremy Ye, to respond to the party but the dispatch log does not show when he arrived and cleared the party. The call was cleared as a "Negative Violation" even though the live bands continued to play. This is typical when SNAP responds to fraternity parties in our neighborhood. It was frustrating that the noisy party and live bands continued for hours. I called SLOPD again at around 10 p.m. and the party still continued. At nearly 11 p.m. I got out of bed and walked back down to the party to confirm it was at the same address because it seemed unbelievable. It was a live band at a party at 301 Hathway so I called SLOPD again at 10:56 p.m. to report that the live band was still playing. Again, the party was cleared as a Negative Violation. 5 Seemingly emboldened by the ability to evade citations on Friday 2/2, the very next night, Saturday 2/3/2024, Sigma Nu had another large fraternity party at 301 Hathway. SLOPD was called at 9:56 p.m. and a SNAP officer was dispatched. The fraternity was issued a DAC which has no monetary fine but advises the tenants about the SLOMC noise ordinance. The DAC states there were only 50 people at the party but I observed far more people than that. It may not matter, but I just want you to know that the number of people indicated on SLOPD's noise citations does not always accurately reflect the true number of attendees at a party. Now that the weather is getting warmer, fraternities are having loud parties during the daytime. They are referred to as a "dayge" which is short for 'daytime rage'. There are also parties at night, so there is no escape from the booming music and screaming all weekend in our neighborhood. Last weekend, on Saturday, 4/27/2024, Sigma Nu at 301 Hathway had a huge party with loud music in the backyard and crowds of people in the front and back. SLOPD was called at 2:35 p.m. and it was cleared at a Negative Violation. There was music and screaming from several fraternities in our neighborhood. After hours passed, another family member went down to Hathway at 5:00 p.m. and observed the large fraternity party still in progress at 301 Hathway. SLOPD was called again and this time Sigma Nu was cited for a noise violation. 6 Despite the DAC and citation, Sigma Nu has decided to have yet another party with three live bands at 301 Hathway on 5/10/2024. The event was posted on social media on 4/30/2024, after they received the noise citation on 4/27/2024. Sigma Nu at 301 Hathway is one of over 50 illegal fraternities in Alta Vista and lower Monterey Heights R-1/R-2 neighborhoods. Please let me know what is being done to stop the illegal fraternity operations in our neighborhoods so that we can return to a place where we enjoy peace in our home on weekends. Thank you for your help. Very truly yours, Kathie Walker P.S. Next week I will feature 348/350 Hathway which is the main chapter house for Phi Sigma Kappa and has been issued over 20 noise citations in the past three years but continues to regularly throw loud parties. It was cited again last weekend. I have spoken with the property owner to no avail. CAL POLY SLO FRATERNITY HOUSES1 Fraternity, # members Address Status of Operation Documentation2 Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT (U1099) 8/2/1983 AB 524 list + 331 Hathway Ave (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + Alpha Sigma Phi 1218 Bond Street (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 299 Albert Drive (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + Beta Theta Pi 1327 E. Foothill Blvd (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list + 1220 Fredericks St (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 556 Hathway (R2) (per Kappa Kappa Gamma, CP list 5/18/2023) AB 524 list 68 Chorro (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION - Anholm AB 524 list + Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista Place (R4) USE PERMIT (U 106-98) 8/12/1998 AB 524 list + 1270 Fredericks (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New 2023, Rush Events Delta Upsilon 720 E. Foothill Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT (U 36-09) 6/24/2009 AB 524 list + 1700 Fredericks (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 281 Albert (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 388 Chaplin (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 1555 Slack (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + Kappa Sigma 108 Crandall Way (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list 322 Hathway (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 281 Hathway (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 526 Kentucky (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 1990 McCollum (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list 1142 Montalban (T-C) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Commerical AB 524 list 293 Albert (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista Social media post+ 1861 Hope (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list Lambda Chi Alpha 1264 Foothill Blvd (R4) NO USE PERMIT FOR 1264 FOOTHILL AB 524 list + USE PERMIT FOR 1292 Foothill (U-109 05) occupied by Sigma Nu, permit stays w/address 1241 Monte Vista (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list 1243 Monte Vista (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list 171 Orange (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 12 Hathway (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 253 Albert Drive (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New in 2023- Rush + 278 Albert Drive (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 285 Chaplin (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista 1 Houses located in residential zones R-1 and R-2 zones are highlighted in yellow 2 “AB 524” means the address is listed on Cal Poly Greek Life website, AB 524 Sorority & Fraternity Transparency Act Report, where a ‘sanctioned event’ was held; “+” symbol means that the fraternity advertised the address on social media for rush events, there are photos of fraternity with their Greek letters at the property address, etc. All this evidence is included in the Cal Poly Fraternity and Neighborhood Impact Report. 178 Chaplin (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list Phi Delta Theta 470 Grand Ave (R1) ILLLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH Social media post + 260 Chaplin Ln (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New 2023 – Rush Event + 251 Highland Dr (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – N of Foothill Rush Event + 568 Ellen Way (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – SR Park Area Rush Event + Phi Gamma Delta 1254 Bond (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 1256 Bond (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 385 Chaplin (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 1229 Fredericks St. (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New 2023, Rush Event + Phi Kappa Psi 1335 E. Foothill (R4) USE PERMIT (U 47-10) 6/13/2013 AB 524 list+ 237 Albert Drive (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 2061 Hope (R-1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH New 2023, Rush Event + 1271 Stafford (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New in 2023 + 1273 Stafford (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New in 2023 + 1275 Stafford (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New in 2023 + 346 Grand (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH AB 524 list 1740 Fredericks (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list Phi Sigma Kappa 348 & 350 Hathway (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 1908 Loomis (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH AB 524 list + Pi Kappa Phi 740 W. Foothill Blvd (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list + 2090 Hays (R1) (2023 became Sigma Phi Epsilon) AB 524 list 134 Orange Dr (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista 447 N. Chorro (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – N of Foothill 2023 Rush Event + 66 Rafael Way (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – S of Foothill 2023 Rush Event + Sigma Nu 1304 Foothill Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT (U1484) 05/08/1991 AB 524 list 1292 Foothill (R4) USE PERMIT (U-109 05) see Lambda Chi Social media post + 301 Hathway (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 248-250 Grand Ave (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH AB 524 list + 1621 McCollum (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list 290 Chaplin (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista Social media post + Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays (R-1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH New 2023 Rush Event + 1725 Santa Barbara3 ILLEGAL LOCATION AB 524 list Sigma Pi 1525 Slack (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 3 Sigma Phi Epsilon relocated to 2090 Hays. It’s unclear if they still occupy 1725 Santa Barbara. 124 Stenner (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list + Theta Chi 1238 E. Foothill (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list 1441 Slack (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list 496 Kentucky (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New in 2023 Rush Event + 1350 Stafford (R2)4 ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New in 2023 Rush Event + 1820 Hope (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH AB 524 list 410 Grand Ave (R1)5 ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH New in 2023 + 191 Kentucky (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list 2149 Santa Ynez (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH AB 524 list 1661 McCollum (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list Zeta Beta Tau 654 Graves (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list + 658 Graves (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list + 286 California (R4) NO USE PERMIT – Alta Vista 1928 Garfield (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list 244 Albert Drive (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 2044 Loomis (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH AB 524 list 1841 Slack (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH AB 524 list Alpha Gamma Rho 132 California Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT (U 144-97) 12/10/1997 (Not in Good Standing with Cal Poly, Suspended until Fall 2025 *) *SLOMC 17.86.130 Fraternities and Sororities: A. 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 Located next to 496 Kentucky, 1350 Stafford is the 2-story building with Greek letters (for Theta Chi) mounted on top level of building as shown in photos in the Cal Poly Fraternity Neighborhood Impact Report. 5 Located across the street from 1820 Hope, both have Theta Chi flags 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Saturday, May 4, 2024 11:26 AM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Illegal fraternities, Noise - What's being done?? Hi Kathie, Thanks for your email. I am sorry to see that you continue to be frustrated by activities in your neighborhood. And, it appears from your email that you feel city staff are not being responsive enough to your concerns. While I have to admit, I haven’t checked in on this situation recently (since the response to St. Fratty’s day), I will follow-up to get an update. As I am sure you know, this is a very complex issue. Maybe more complex than it appears from your email. It is my understanding that there are no “easy” solutions that the city can implement, on our own, to “solve” it. But, I know that we continue to work with Cal Poly on how we can make things better for everyone. And, again, I will request an update next week. Thanks and I hope you have a pleasant weekend, Michelle From: kathie walker < > Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 11:08 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn < ; Brett Cross < ; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: Illegal fraternities, Noise - What's being done?? This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello All, We continue to have a huge problem with dozens of illegal fraternities in our neighborhood and I'd like to know what steps are being taken by the city to stop their operation. Despite the laws in San Luis Obispo that prohibit fraternities in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods per the municipal code and zoning/land use regulations, we have experienced the proliferation of fraternity houses to such an extent that they occupy about 15% of the houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood. By their very nature, fraternities are noisy and disruptive, with regular parties that include loud music and screaming, increased traffic, and activities such as drinking games that involve chanting and yelling, etc. They also tend to keep nocturnal hours. Courts throughout our country have ruled that fraternities are distinctly different from residential dwellings, including boarding houses and apartments, for the reasons mentioned. And it is likely why San Luis Obispo's regulations do not allow fraternities to operate in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and require a Use Permit in R-3 and R-4 zones. The illegal fraternities operate as full-fledged fraternity houses and rob us of the quiet enjoyment on our property every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. My daughter and son-in-law live a block from Sinsheimer Park but are currently staying with us while their house is being remodeled, and they are astounded at the non-stop noise from fraternities around our home every weekend. The number of parties in our neighborhood has grown over the past few years as more illegal fraternities have moved into rental homes. You can't possibly understand how horrible it is unless you live through it, which we are forced to do because we can't move. It is a complete nightmare. 2 Loud parties at illegal fraternity houses in SLO's R1 and R2 neighborhoods make up a large portion of the noise complaints to SLOPD each weekend, from Thursday to Sunday. Usually a SNAP officer is dispatched, even though city policy has SLOPD officers responding to fraternity houses and not a SNAP officer. Most of the time, SNAP officers do not cite fraternity parties, as shown by reviewing the historical records from the SLOPD dispatch log. From personal experience, my husband and I have witnessed a SNAP officer walk up to a party, tell a guy guarding the front door, "You need to turn that down" then walk away without consequence. The party hosts did not turn the music down and we ended up calling SLOPD three times that night for the same party. On multiple occasions, we've seen SNAP officers break up the parties but they do not cite them. Instead, they clear the parties on the SLOPD dispatch log as negative violations. This emboldens the fraternities to continue to throw loud fraternity parties. It's been a continual cycle with some fraternity houses in our neighborhood. It is intolerable to live under the conditions, with the loud fraternity parties we are forced to endure every weekend. There are 17 fraternities in Cal Poly's Interfraternity Council (IFC) and at least 75 fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo, including main chapter houses and satellite houses. Only seven of those 75 fraternity houses have Use Permits and they are located in R3 and R4 zones. The Use Permits contain conditions for their operations, such as limiting occupancy and the hours of meetings a nd gatherings, regulation or prohibition of parties, parking plans, etc. The Use Permits state that they are overseen by the Community Development Director. The SLOMC and zoning ordinance does not allow fraternities to operate in R1 and R2 residential neighborhoods yet there are over 50 documented fraternity houses, including the main chapter houses, located in R 1 and R2 residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. I've attached the addresses with the source of documentation to this email. Last year, I provided an extensive, detailed report with documentation of the addresses of Cal Poly's fraternities, including the illegal fraternities in our neighborhoods, to Community Development Director Timmi Tway and Code Enforcement Supervisor John Mezzapesa. I also provided them with a link to a report on Cal Poly's Greek Life web page that lists the locations of all "sanctioned events" held by fraternities, and verifies the illegal fraternity operations at addresses in our neighborhood. I want to point out that Cal Poly has a list of all fraternity houses each year, including satellite houses, but refused to provide that information to the city of SLO and to me, through a public records request. Previously, I contacted Cal Poly and the city about illegal fraternity operations. Cal Poly told me it was in the city limits and not their responsibility. When the city contacted some of the fraternities, they denied they were operating as fraternities even though the house was occupied exclusively by fraternity members and they had regular gatherings, including parties with sororities. Last year, Assembly Bill 524: The Campus- Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act required every college and university in California to publish a report annually with a list of the locations of their Greek Life activities. That's how we were able to cross-reference and verify the addresses of the illegal fraternities. It was not through any cooperation with Cal Poly. I think that's an important point and makes clear that the city needs to solve this problem rather than wait for "cooperation" from Cal Poly. Despite my report and verification of dozens of illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, the fraternities continue to operate and the noise on weekends is getting worse with the warmer weather. It is extremely unfair to the long-term residents and others who want peace that nothing has been done to rectify this known problem. Last weekend - 4/25 to 4/28- there were calls for loud parties at seven documented, illegal fraternities in our neighborhood. The weekend before last - 4/18 to 4/21 - there were calls for at least six documented, illegal fraternities although they were not all the same addresses as last weekend. I will cover just one of those fraternities cited last weekend in this email and will continue to follow up with information about the other fraternities so that you can better understand the situation for the residents. This week I will address 301 Hathway, Sigma Nu, which is in an R-2 zone, bordering a R-1 zone to the north. The house two doors up is where the R-1 zone begins. 301 Hathway - Sigma Nu Sigma Nu has occupied 301 Hathway for several years and is a known fraternity house by SLOPD. It has received multiple citations including an unruly gathering during St. Frattys on 3/18/2023. Below is the history of calls to SLOPD for the academic years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, with blue lines dividing the academic school years. 3 The noise complaints to SLOPD increased with each academic year. The fraternity received a citation on 5/20/2023, which place s them on the "no warning" list for 9 months or until 2/20/2024. A property on the "no warning" list is not allowed to register a party through SLOPD's Party Registration Program and is also not eligible for a response from SNAP or a zero-fine Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC). If someone calls SLOPD for a noisy party for an address that is on the "no warning" list, it requires a police response and a citation with a fine is supposed to be issued if there is a verified noise violation. NOTE: Permitted fraternity houses are ALWAYS on the "no warning" list. Therefore, those fraternities that are operating illegally are able to circumvent the system of accountability set up by the city of SLO for fraternity houses. At the beginning of the academic year 2023-2024, SLOPD apparently removed 301 Hathway from the "no warning list" which cleared the way for the fraternity to register parties through SLOPD before 2/20/2024 (9 months from their last citation) and having SNAP respond to noise complaints with a DAC issued instead of SLOPD issuing a citation if there is a noise violation. The Party Registration Program is like a get-out-of-jail-free situation. When a property registers a party through SLOPD, and someone calls to complain about the loud party, there is no police response to the party regardless of the reported size or disturbance. Instead, a SLOPD dispatcher calls the party host and gives them 20 minutes to quiet down. Sigma Nu registered a party through SLOPD for 10/21/2023. Someone called to complain about the noisy party and there was no police response but SLOPD dispatch called the fraternity to tell them they have 20 minutes to quiet down. The dispatch log shows a number instead of a name for the "Responsible Officer", identifies the dispatcher call as "COM8" under "Units", and the noise complaint is cleared as "No Report". If SLOPD had not prematurely removed the address from the "no warning" list, the fraternity would not have been eligible to register the party and the noise complaint would have required SLOPD response because the property had received a citation only five months earlier. Addresses stay on the "no warning" list for nine months after they are issued a noise citation. It doesn't make sense that this known fraternity was allowed to be removed from the no warning list. SLOPD set up the Early Removal Program that allows property owners to be removed from the "no warning" list if they fill out a form stating that they have a complete tenant turnover. But fraternity houses that occupy the same property year after year should not be allowed to escape accountability by claiming to have a turnover of tenancy. Notably, the property owners are also fined for noise citations, so they have an incentive to claim that there is a tenant turnover at their property because they revert to zero-fine DACs and eliminate the liability of progressive fines that are associated with noise citations. There is also no clause on the Early Removal form that requires the property to certify under penalty of perjury, which also should be required. Also, documented fraternity houses should not be allowed to use the early removal loophole. On Monday, 1/29/2024, Sigma Nu posted on their social media pages that they were hosting three live bands at their fraternity house at 301 Hathway on Friday 2/2/2024. 4 Again, they registered their party through SLOPD's Party Registration Program . The city's webpage Party Registration states, in bold font "***NO LIVE BANDS OR DJs PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.*** On Friday night, 2/2/2024, our family could hear a live band from a house nearby. I walked down to find the address and called SLOPD at 9:28 p.m. to report the live band and loud party at 301 Hathway. As I was walking home, a SLOPD dispatcher left a message on my cell phone saying: "They're registered with the city to have a party tonight so I gave them a warning. They have 20 minutes to turn down the noise..." Apparently, the police dispatcher did not know that parties with live bands are against the municipal code and are not allowed to register their parties through the city's program. I called her back at 9:33 p.m. to explain that live bands aren't allowed to register their parties and SLOPD should respond. Instead of sending a SLOPD officer because of the reported live band, she sent SNAP officer, Jeremy Ye, to respond to the party but the dispatch log does not show when he arrived and cleared the party. The call was cleared as a "Negative Violation" even though the live bands continued to play. This is typical when SNAP responds to fraternity parties in our neighborhood. It was frustrating that the noisy party and live bands continued for hours. I called SLOPD again at around 10 p.m. and the party still continued. At nearly 11 p.m. I got out of bed and walked back down to the party to confirm it was at the same address because it seemed unbelievable. It was a live band at a party at 301 Hathway so I called SLOPD again at 10:56 p.m. to report tha t the live band was still playing. Again, the party was cleared as a Negative Violation. 5 Seemingly emboldened by the ability to evade citations on Friday 2/2, the very next night, Saturday 2/3/2024, Sigma Nu had another large fraternity party at 301 Hathway. SLOPD was called at 9:56 p.m. and a SNAP officer was dispatched. The fraternity was issued a DAC which has no monetary fine but advises the tenants about the SLOMC noise ordinance. The DAC states there were only 50 people at the party but I observed far more people than that. It may not matter, but I just want you to know that the number of people indicated on SLOPD's noise citations does not always accurately reflect the true number of attendees at a party. Now that the weather is getting warmer, fraternities are having loud parties during the daytime. They are referred to as a "dayge" which is short for 'daytime rage'. There are also parties at night, so there is no escape from the booming music and screaming all weekend in our neighborhood. Last weekend, on Saturday, 4/27/2024, Sigma Nu at 301 Hathway had a huge party with loud music in the backyard and crowds of people in the front and back. SLOPD was called at 2:35 p.m. and it was cleared at a Negative Violation. There was music and screaming from several fraternities in our neighborhood. After hours passed, another family member went down to Hathway at 5:00 p.m. and observed the large fraternity party still in progress at 301 Hathway. SLOPD was called again and this time Sigma Nu was cited for a noise violation. 6 Despite the DAC and citation, Sigma Nu has decided to have yet another party with three live bands at 301 Hathway on 5/10/2024. The event was posted on social media on 4/30/2024, after they received the noise citation on 4/27/2024. Sigma Nu at 301 Hathway is one of over 50 illegal fraternities in Alta Vista and lower Monterey Heights R-1/R-2 neighborhoods. Please let me know what is being done to stop the illegal fraternity operations in our neighborhoods so that we can return to a place where we enjoy peace in our home on weekends. Thank you for your help. Very truly yours, Kathie Walker P.S. Next week I will feature 348/350 Hathway which is the main chapter house for Phi Sigma Kappa and has been issued over 20 noise citations in the past three years but continues to regularly throw loud parties. It was cited again last weekend. I have spoken with the property owner to no avail. 1 From:Scott, Rick Sent:Monday, May 6, 2024 6:15 PM To:Kathie Walker Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John; McDonald, Whitney; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn; Brett Cross; Hermann, Greg Subject:RE: Illegal fraternities, Noise - What's being done?? BCC CC: Mrs. Walker, (Council Blind Copied) Thank you for reaching out with your concerns and we are aware of the issues regarding the satellite fraternity houses in your neighborhood. We have engaged our Code Enforcement department to explore longer term solutions to these issues, as zoning is outside of the police department. I know you have engaged Director Timmi Tway on these matters and she is included on this response. As for your specific concerns about noise complaints and the response from the police department, I want to assure you that I have thoroughly reviewed the actions taken by our officers. I have not found an occasion where officers have abused their discretion, as they work really hard to address noise complaints, but we understand not all parties are always satisfied with the outcomes of these actions. The Party registration program is an important tool aimed at managing noise disturbances and to mitigate the impact of parties. I am happy to report that the police department stopped allowing satellite houses to register their parties a couple months ago, consistent with your same concerns. You are correct that SNAP officers are limited in their authority to issue citations and are only tasked with issuing warnings. SNAP officers serve as a crucial resource in managing neighborhood issues such as noise and complement the efforts of our law enforcement officers. Given the demands on our police team, including responding to felony and misdemeanor crimes, enforcing traffic laws, as well as downtown safety, SNAP officers serve as a force multiplier, allowing us to effectively address a wider range of community issues and crimes. We appreciate your understanding of the division of responsibilities, and we remain committed to leveraging all available resources to address the challenges surrounding, crime, traffic, community issues, as well as noise as we understand this has a direct impact on quality of life. Finally, I want to emphasize our proactive approach to addressing concerns related to live bands. We understand the impact bands can have on noise levels and disruption in the neighborhood and they are not allowed. To this end, we have previously implemented measures to address such occurrences. Our enforcement team routinely visits hosts before scheduled events to advise them of the violation. Additionally, on the day of the event, we proactively monitor the location and are prepared to issue citations if live bands are still featured. We take these matters seriously, and when alerted to potential issues in advance, we take decisive action to deter such events, as exemplified by our preparations for the upcoming event on May 10th. With your partnership we’ve continued successfully pursuing avenues to mitigate the impact of noise in all of our neighborhoods even though at times it can be frustrating when our student community members have occasion to display a lack of awareness or thoughtfulness for their non-student neighbors. Thank you, Rick Scott Police Chief Police Department 2 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E rscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7256 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 11:08 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn < ; Brett Cross < ; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: Illegal fraternities, Noise - What's being done?? This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello All, We continue to have a huge problem with dozens of illegal fraternities in our neighborhood and I'd like to know what steps are being taken by the city to stop their operation. Despite the laws in San Luis Obispo that prohibit fraternities in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods per the municipal code and zoning/land use regulations, we have experienced the proliferation of fraternity houses to such an extent that they occupy about 15% of the houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood. By their very nature, fraternities are noisy and disruptive, with regular parties that include loud music and screaming, increased traffic, and activities such as drinking games that involve chanting and yelling, etc. They also tend to keep nocturnal hours. Courts throughout our country have ruled that fraternities are distinctly different from residential dwellings, including boarding houses and apartments, for the reasons mentioned. And it is likely why San Luis Obispo's regulations do not allow fraternities to operate in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and require a Use Permit in R-3 and R-4 zones. The illegal fraternities operate as full-fledged fraternity houses and rob us of the quiet enjoyment on our property every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. My daughter and son-in-law live a block from Sinsheimer Park but are currently staying with us while their house is being remodeled, and they are astounded at the non-stop noise from fraternities around our home every weekend. The number of parties in our neighborhood has grown over the past few years as more illegal fraternities have moved into rental homes. You can't possibly understand how horrible it is unless you live through it, which we are forced to do because we can't move. It is a complete nightmare. Loud parties at illegal fraternity houses in SLO's R1 and R2 neighborhoods make up a large portion of the noise complaints to SLOPD each weekend, from Thursday to Sunday. Usually a SNAP officer is dispatched, even though city policy has SLOPD officers responding to fraternity houses and not a SNAP officer. Most of the time, SNAP officers do not cite fraternity parties, as shown by reviewing the historical records from the SLOPD dispatch log. From personal experience, my husband and I have witnessed a SNAP officer walk up to a party, tell a guy guarding the front door, "You need to turn that down" then walk away without consequence. The party hosts did not turn the music down and we ended up calling SLOPD three times that night for the same party. On multiple occasions, we've seen SNAP officers break up the parties but they do not cite them. Instead, they clear the parties on the SLOPD dispatch log as negative violations. This emboldens the fraternities to continue to throw loud fraternity parties. It's been a continual cycle with some fraternity houses in our neighborhood. It is intolerable to live under the conditions, with the loud fraternity parties we are forced to endure every weekend. 3 There are 17 fraternities in Cal Poly's Interfraternity Council (IFC) and at least 75 fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo, including main chapter houses and satellite houses. Only seven of those 75 fraternity houses have Use Permits and they are located in R3 and R4 zones. The Use Permits contain conditions for their operations, such as limiting occupancy and the hours of meetings a nd gatherings, regulation or prohibition of parties, parking plans, etc. The Use Permits state that they are overseen by the Community Development Director. The SLOMC and zoning ordinance does not allow fraternities to operate in R1 and R2 residential neighborhoods yet there are over 50 documented fraternity houses, including the main chapter houses, located in R 1 and R2 residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. I've attached the addresses with the source of documentation to this email. Last year, I provided an extensive, detailed report with documentation of the addresses of Cal Poly's fraternities, including the illegal fraternities in our neighborhoods, to Community Development Director Timmi Tway and Code Enforcement Supervisor John Mezzapesa. I also provided them with a link to a report on Cal Poly's Greek Life web page that lists the locations of all "sanctioned events" held by fraternities, and verifies the illegal fraternity operations at addresses in our neighborhood. I want to point out that Cal Poly has a list of all fraternity houses each year, including satellite houses, but refused to provide that information to the city of SLO and to me, through a public records request. Previously, I contacted Cal Poly and the city about illegal fraternity operations. Cal Poly told me it was in the city limits and not their responsibility. When the city contacted some of the fraternities, they denied they were operating as fraternities even though the house was occupied exclusively by fraternity members and they had regular gatherings, including parties with sororities. Last year, Assembly Bill 524: The Campus- Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act required every college and university in California to publish a report annually with a list of the locations of their Greek Life activities. That's how we were able to cross-reference and verify the addresses of the illegal fraternities. It was not through any cooperation with Cal Poly. I think that's an important point and makes clear that the city needs to solve this problem rather than wait for "cooperation" from Cal Poly. Despite my report and verification of dozens of illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, the fraternities continue to operate and the noise on weekends is getting worse with the warmer weather. It is extremely unfair to the long-term residents and others who want peace that nothing has been done to rectify this known problem. Last weekend - 4/25 to 4/28- there were calls for loud parties at seven documented, illegal fraternities in our neighborhood. The weekend before last - 4/18 to 4/21 - there were calls for at least six documented, illegal fraternities although they were not all the same addresses as last weekend. I will cover just one of those fraternities cited last weekend in this email and will continue to follow up with information about the other fraternities so that you can better understand the situation for the residents. This week I will address 301 Hathway, Sigma Nu, which is in an R-2 zone, bordering a R-1 zone to the north. The house two doors up is where the R-1 zone begins. 301 Hathway - Sigma Nu Sigma Nu has occupied 301 Hathway for several years and is a known fraternity house by SLOPD. It has received multiple citations including an unruly gathering during St. Frattys on 3/18/2023. Below is the history of calls to SLOPD for the academic years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, with blue lines dividing the academic school years. The noise complaints to SLOPD increased with each academic year. The fraternity received a citation on 5/20/2023, which place s them on the "no warning" list for 9 months or until 2/20/2024. A property on the "no warning" list is not allowed to register a party through SLOPD's Party Registration Program and is also not eligible for a response from SNAP or a zero-fine Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC). If someone calls SLOPD for a noisy party for an address that is on the "no warning" list, it requires a police response and a citation with a fine is supposed to be issued if there is a verified noise violation. NOTE: Permitted fraternity houses are ALWAYS on the "no warning" list. Therefore, those fraternities that are operating illegally are able to circumvent the system of accountability set up by the city of SLO for fraternity houses. 4 At the beginning of the academic year 2023-2024, SLOPD apparently removed 301 Hathway from the "no warning list" which cleared the way for the fraternity to register parties through SLOPD before 2/20/2024 (9 months from their last citation) and having SNAP respond to noise complaints with a DAC issued instead of SLOPD issuing a citation if there is a noise violation. The Party Registration Program is like a get-out-of-jail-free situation. When a property registers a party through SLOPD, and someone calls to complain about the loud party, there is no police response to the party regardless of the reported size or disturbance. Instead, a SLOPD dispatcher calls the party host and gives them 20 minutes to quiet down. Sigma Nu registered a party through SLOPD for 10/21/2023. Someone called to complain about the noisy party and there was no police response but SLOPD dispatch called the fraternity to tell them they have 20 minutes to quiet down. The dispatch log shows a number instead of a name for the "Responsible Officer", identifies the dispatcher call as "COM8" under "Units", and the noise complaint is cleared as "No Report". If SLOPD had not prematurely removed the address from the "no warning" list, the fraternity would not have been eligible to register the party and the noise complaint would have required SLOPD response because the property had received a citation only five months earlier. Addresses stay on the "no warning" list for nine months after they are issued a noise citation. It doesn't make sense that this known fraternity was allowed to be removed from the no warning list. SLOPD set up the Early Removal Program that allows property owners to be removed from the "no warning" list if they fill out a form stating that they have a complete tenant turnover. But fraternity houses that occupy the same property year after year should not be allowed to escape accountability by claiming to have a turnover of tenancy. Notably, the property owners are also fined for noise citations, so they have an incentive to claim that there is a tenant turnover at their property because they revert to zero-fine DACs and eliminate the liability of progressive fines that are associated with noise citations. There is also no clause on the Early Removal form that requires the property to certify under penalty of perjury, which also should be required. Also, documented fraternity houses should not be allowed to use the early removal loophole. On Monday, 1/29/2024, Sigma Nu posted on their social media pages that they were hosting three live bands at their fraternity house at 301 Hathway on Friday 2/2/2024. 5 Again, they registered their party through SLOPD's Party Registration Program . The city's webpage Party Registration states, in bold font "***NO LIVE BANDS OR DJs PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.*** On Friday night, 2/2/2024, our family could hear a live band from a house nearby. I walked down to find the address and called SLOPD at 9:28 p.m. to report the live band and loud party at 301 Hathway. As I was walking home, a SLOPD dispatcher left a message on my cell phone saying: "They're registered with the city to have a party tonight so I gave them a warning. They have 20 minutes to turn down the noise..." Apparently, the police dispatcher did not know that parties with live bands are against the municipal code and are not allowed to register their parties through the city's program. I called her back at 9:33 p.m. to explain that live bands aren't allowed to register their parties and SLOPD should respond. Instead of sending a SLOPD officer because of the reported live band, she sent SNAP officer, Jeremy Ye, to respond to the party but the dispatch log does not show when he arrived and cleared the party. The call was cleared as a "Negative Violation" even though the live bands continued to play. This is typical when SNAP responds to fraternity parties in our neighborhood. It was frustrating that the noisy party and live bands continued for hours. I called SLOPD again at around 10 p.m. and the party still continued. At nearly 11 p.m. I got out of bed and walked back down to the party to confirm it was at the same address because it seemed unbelievable. It was a live band at a party at 301 Hathway so I called SLOPD again at 10:56 p.m. to report tha t the live band was still playing. Again, the party was cleared as a Negative Violation. 6 Seemingly emboldened by the ability to evade citations on Friday 2/2, the very next night, Saturday 2/3/2024, Sigma Nu had another large fraternity party at 301 Hathway. SLOPD was called at 9:56 p.m. and a SNAP officer was dispatched. The fraternity was issued a DAC which has no monetary fine but advises the tenants about the SLOMC noise ordinance. The DAC states there were only 50 people at the party but I observed far more people than that. It may not matter, but I just want you to know that the number of people indicated on SLOPD's noise citations does not always accurately reflect the true number of attendees at a party. Now that the weather is getting warmer, fraternities are having loud parties during the daytime. They are referred to as a "dayge" which is short for 'daytime rage'. There are also parties at night, so there is no escape from the booming music and screaming all weekend in our neighborhood. Last weekend, on Saturday, 4/27/2024, Sigma Nu at 301 Hathway had a huge party with loud music in the backyard and crowds of people in the front and back. SLOPD was called at 2:35 p.m. and it was cleared at a Negative Violation. There was music and screaming from several fraternities in our neighborhood. After hours passed, another family member went down to Hathway at 5:00 p.m. and observed the large fraternity party still in progress at 301 Hathway. SLOPD was called again and this time Sigma Nu was cited for a noise violation. 7 Despite the DAC and citation, Sigma Nu has decided to have yet another party with three live bands at 301 Hathway on 5/10/2024. The event was posted on social media on 4/30/2024, after they received the noise citation on 4/27/2024. Sigma Nu at 301 Hathway is one of over 50 illegal fraternities in Alta Vista and lower Monterey Heights R-1/R-2 neighborhoods. Please let me know what is being done to stop the illegal fraternity operations in our neighborhoods so that we can return to a place where we enjoy peace in our home on weekends. Thank you for your help. Very truly yours, Kathie Walker P.S. Next week I will feature 348/350 Hathway which is the main chapter house for Phi Sigma Kappa and has been issued over 20 noise citations in the past three years but continues to regularly throw loud parties. It was cited again last weekend. I have spoken with the property owner to no avail. 1 From:CityClerk Sent:Monday, May 6, 2024 9:41 AM To:kathie walker Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John; McDonald, Whitney; Hermann, Greg Subject:cc Walker (Illegal fraternities) Kathy Walker, Thank you for taking the time to contact the City Council on this issue. The City Council has received your input and Police Chief Scott has been added to the recipients by copy on this email. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 slocity.org Bcc: City Council From: kathie walker < > Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 11:08 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn < ; Brett Cross < ; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: Illegal fraternities, Noise - What's being done?? This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello All, We continue to have a huge problem with dozens of illegal fraternities in our neighborhood and I'd like to know what steps are being taken by the city to stop their operation. Despite the laws in San Luis Obispo that prohibit fraternities in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods per the municipal code and zoning/land use regulations, we have experienced the proliferation of fraternity houses to such an extent that they occupy about 15% of the houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood. By their very nature, fraternities are noisy and disruptive, with regular parties that include loud music and screaming, increased traffic, and activities such as drinking games that involve chanting and yelling, etc. They also tend to keep nocturnal hours. Courts throughout our country have ruled that fraternities are distinctly different from residential dwellings, including boarding houses and apartments, for the reasons mentioned. And it is likely why San Luis Obispo's regulations do not allow fraternities to operate in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and require a Use Permit in R-3 and R-4 zones. 2 The illegal fraternities operate as full-fledged fraternity houses and rob us of the quiet enjoyment on our property every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. My daughter and son-in-law live a block from Sinsheimer Park but are currently staying with us while their house is being remodeled, and they are astounded at the non-stop noise from fraternities around our home every weekend. The number of parties in our neighborhood has grown over the past few years as more illegal fraternities have moved into rental homes. You can't possibly understand how horrible it is unless you live through it, which we are forced to do because we can't move. It is a complete nightmare. Loud parties at illegal fraternity houses in SLO's R1 and R2 neighborhoods make up a large portion of the noise complaints to SLOPD each weekend, from Thursday to Sunday. Usually a SNAP officer is dispatched, even though city policy has SLOPD officers responding to fraternity houses and not a SNAP officer. Most of the time, SNAP officers do not cite fraternity parties, as shown by reviewing the historical records from the SLOPD dispatch log. From personal experience, my husband and I have witnessed a SNAP officer walk up to a party, tell a guy guarding the front door, "You need to turn that down" then walk away without consequence. The party hosts did not turn the music down and we ended up calling SLOPD three times that night for the same party. On multiple occasions, we've seen SNAP officers break up the parties but they do not cite them. Instead, they clear the parties on the SLOPD dispatch log as negative violations. This emboldens the fraternities to continue to throw loud fraternity parties. It's been a continual cycle with some fraternity houses in our neighborhood. It is intolerable to live under the conditions, with the loud fraternity parties we are forced to endure every weekend. There are 17 fraternities in Cal Poly's Interfraternity Council (IFC) and at least 75 fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo, including main chapter houses and satellite houses. Only seven of those 75 fraternity houses have Use Permits and they are located in R3 and R4 zones. The Use Permits contain conditions for their operations, such as limiting occupancy and the hours of meetings a nd gatherings, regulation or prohibition of parties, parking plans, etc. The Use Permits state that they are overseen by the Community Development Director. The SLOMC and zoning ordinance does not allow fraternities to operate in R1 and R2 residential neighborhoods yet there are over 50 documented fraternity houses, including the main chapter houses, located in R 1 and R2 residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. I've attached the addresses with the source of documentation to this email. Last year, I provided an extensive, detailed report with documentation of the addresses of Cal Poly's fraternities, including the illegal fraternities in our neighborhoods, to Community Development Director Timmi Tway and Code Enforcement Supervisor John Mezzapesa. I also provided them with a link to a report on Cal Poly's Greek Life web page that lists the locations of all "sanctioned events" held by fraternities, and verifies the illegal fraternity operations at addresses in our neighborhood. I want to point out that Cal Poly has a list of all fraternity houses each year, including satellite houses, but refused to provide that information to the city of SLO and to me, through a public records request. Previously, I contacted Cal Poly and the city about illegal fraternity operations. Cal Poly told me it was in the city limits and not their responsibility. When the city contacted some of the fraternities, they denied they were operating as fraternities even though the house was occupied exclusively by fraternity members and they had regular gatherings, including parties with sororities. Last year, Assembly Bill 524: The Campus- Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act required every college and university in California to publish a report annually with a list of the locations of their Greek Life activities. That's how we were able to cross-reference and verify the addresses of the illegal fraternities. It was not through any cooperation with Cal Poly. I think that's an important point and makes clear that the city needs to solve this problem rather than wait for "cooperation" from Cal Poly. Despite my report and verification of dozens of illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, the fraternities continue to operate and the noise on weekends is getting worse with the warmer weather. It is extremely unfair to the long-term residents and others who want peace that nothing has been done to rectify this known problem. Last weekend - 4/25 to 4/28- there were calls for loud parties at seven documented, illegal fraternities in our neighborhood. The weekend before last - 4/18 to 4/21 - there were calls for at least six documented, illegal fraternities although they were not all the same addresses as last weekend. I will cover just one of those fraternities cited last weekend in this email and will continue to follow up with information about the other fraternities so that you can better understand the situation for the residents. This week I will address 301 Hathway, Sigma Nu, which is in an R-2 zone, bordering a R-1 zone to the north. The house two doors up is where the R-1 zone begins. 301 Hathway - Sigma Nu 3 Sigma Nu has occupied 301 Hathway for several years and is a known fraternity house by SLOPD. It has received multiple citations including an unruly gathering during St. Frattys on 3/18/2023. Below is the history of calls to SLOPD for the academic years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, with blue lines dividing the academic school years. The noise complaints to SLOPD increased with each academic year. The fraternity received a citation on 5/20/2023, which place s them on the "no warning" list for 9 months or until 2/20/2024. A property on the "no warning" list is not allowed to register a party through SLOPD's Party Registration Program and is also not eligible for a response from SNAP or a zero-fine Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC). If someone calls SLOPD for a noisy party for an address that is on the "no warning" list, it requires a police response and a citation with a fine is supposed to be issued if there is a verified noise violation. NOTE: Permitted fraternity houses are ALWAYS on the "no warning" list. Therefore, those fraternities that are operating illegally are able to circumvent the system of accountability set up by the city of SLO for fraternity houses. At the beginning of the academic year 2023-2024, SLOPD apparently removed 301 Hathway from the "no warning list" which cleared the way for the fraternity to register parties through SLOPD before 2/20/2024 (9 months from their last citation) and having SNAP respond to noise complaints with a DAC issued instead of SLOPD issuing a citation if there is a noise violation. The Party Registration Program is like a get-out-of-jail-free situation. When a property registers a party through SLOPD, and someone calls to complain about the loud party, there is no police response to the party regardless of the reported size or disturbance. Instead, a SLOPD dispatcher calls the party host and gives them 20 minutes to quiet down. Sigma Nu registered a party through SLOPD for 10/21/2023. Someone called to complain about the noisy party and there was no police response but SLOPD dispatch called the fraternity to tell them they have 20 minutes to quiet down. The dispatch log shows a number instead of a name for the "Responsible Officer", identifies the dispatcher call as "COM8" under "Units", and the noise complaint is cleared as "No Report". If SLOPD had not prematurely removed the address from the "no warning" list, the fraternity would not have been eligible to register the party and the noise complaint would have required SLOPD response because the property had received a citation only five months earlier. Addresses stay on the "no warning" list for nine months after they are issued a noise citation. It doesn't make sense that this known fraternity was allowed to be removed from the no warning list. SLOPD set up the Early Removal Program that allows property owners to be removed from the "no warning" list if they fill out a form stating that they have a complete tenant turnover. But fraternity houses that occupy the same property year after year should not be allowed to escape accountability by claiming to have a turnover of tenancy. Notably, the property owners are also fined for noise citations, so they have an incentive to claim that there is a tenant turnover at their property because they revert to zero-fine DACs and eliminate the liability of progressive fines that are associated with noise citations. There is also no clause on the Early Removal form that requires the property to certify under penalty of perjury, which also should be required. Also, documented fraternity houses should not be allowed to use the early removal loophole. 4 On Monday, 1/29/2024, Sigma Nu posted on their social media pages that they were hosting three live bands at their fraternity house at 301 Hathway on Friday 2/2/2024. Again, they registered their party through SLOPD's Party Registration Program . The city's webpage Party Registration states, in bold font "***NO LIVE BANDS OR DJs PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.*** On Friday night, 2/2/2024, our family could hear a live band from a house nearby. I walked down to find the address and called SLOPD at 9:28 p.m. to report the live band and loud party at 301 Hathway. As I was walking home, a SLOPD dispatcher left a message on my cell phone saying: "They're registered with the city to have a party tonight so I gave them a warning. They have 20 minutes to turn down the noise..." Apparently, the police dispatcher did not know that parties with live bands are against the municipal code and are not allowed to register their parties through the city's program. I called her back at 9:33 p.m. to explain that live bands aren't allowed to register their parties and SLOPD should respond. Instead of sending a SLOPD officer because of the reported live band, she sent SNAP officer, Jeremy Ye, to respond to the party but the dispatch log does not show when he arrived and cleared the party. The call was cleared as a "Negative Violation" even though the live bands continued to play. This is typical when SNAP responds to fraternity parties in our neighborhood. It was frustrating that the noisy party and live bands continued for hours. I called SLOPD again at around 10 p.m. and the party still continued. At nearly 11 p.m. I got out of bed and walked back down to the party to confirm it was at the same address because it seemed unbelievable. It was a live band at a party at 301 Hathway so I called SLOPD again at 10:56 p.m. to report tha t the live band was still playing. Again, the party was cleared as a Negative Violation. 5 Seemingly emboldened by the ability to evade citations on Friday 2/2, the very next night, Saturday 2/3/2024, Sigma Nu had another large fraternity party at 301 Hathway. SLOPD was called at 9:56 p.m. and a SNAP officer was dispatched. The fraternity was issued a DAC which has no monetary fine but advises the tenants about the SLOMC noise ordinance. The DAC states there were only 50 people at the party but I observed far more people than that. It may not matter, but I just want you to know that the number of people indicated on SLOPD's noise citations does not always accurately reflect the true number of attendees at a party. Now that the weather is getting warmer, fraternities are having loud parties during the daytime. They are referred to as a "dayge" which is short for 'daytime rage'. There are also parties at night, so there is no escape from the booming music and screaming all weekend in our neighborhood. Last weekend, on Saturday, 4/27/2024, Sigma Nu at 301 Hathway had a huge party with loud music in the backyard and crowds of people in the front and back. SLOPD was called at 2:35 p.m. and it was cleared at a Negative Violation. There was music and screaming from several fraternities in our neighborhood. After hours passed, another family member went down to Hathway at 5:00 p.m. and observed the large fraternity party still in progress at 301 Hathway. SLOPD was called again and this time Sigma Nu was cited for a noise violation. 6 Despite the DAC and citation, Sigma Nu has decided to have yet another party with three live bands at 301 Hathway on 5/10/2024. The event was posted on social media on 4/30/2024, after they received the noise citation on 4/27/2024. Sigma Nu at 301 Hathway is one of over 50 illegal fraternities in Alta Vista and lower Monterey Heights R-1/R-2 neighborhoods. Please let me know what is being done to stop the illegal fraternity operations in our neighborhoods so that we can return to a place where we enjoy peace in our home on weekends. Thank you for your help. Very truly yours, Kathie Walker P.S. Next week I will feature 348/350 Hathway which is the main chapter house for Phi Sigma Kappa and has been issued over 20 noise citations in the past three years but continues to regularly throw loud parties. It was cited again last weekend. I have spoken with the property owner to no avail. 1 From:Mezzapesa, John Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2024 3:59 PM To:kathie walker Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:RE: Illegal fraternities, Noise - What's being done?? Hi Kathie, Thank you for staying on top of this and voicing your concerns. We are listening and your efforts have sparked discussions on how to address the current and future situations. Regarding enforcement efforts, we have sent, or will be sending in the next week, Notices of Violation citing violation of zoning regulations (no use permit) regarding 22 locations. These locations were found to be in violation based on the documented sanctioned events and the list of satellite residences provided by CalPoly. Notices are sent to the property owner, subject address and to the associated local and national addresses. We will also be sending advisory notices to the property owners of 33 other locations that events have taken place. These did not rise to the level of a violation as we have no evidence that members of the organization live there, thus they do not meet the definition of a fraternity/sorority. I gave a presentation to Cal Poly leadership and Greek life student leaders regarding city zoning regulations related to fraternities/sororities and our enforcement process. We are still reviewing the 12 locations you provided in your previous email to determine enforcement steps and have reached out to the property owner of 301 Hathway to advise that, if the planned event occurs on 5/10, a citation will be issued. We will continue to address any reported issues as they are brought to our attention. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Regards, John Mezzapesa Code Enforcement Supervisor Community Development Building and Safety 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668 E jmezzapesa@slocity.org T 805.781.7179 From: kathie walker < > Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 11:08 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn < ; Brett Cross 2 < ; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: Illegal fraternities, Noise - What's being done?? This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello All, We continue to have a huge problem with dozens of illegal fraternities in our neighborhood and I'd like to know what steps are being taken by the city to stop their operation. Despite the laws in San Luis Obispo that prohibit fraternities in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods per the municipal code and zoning/land use regulations, we have experienced the proliferation of fraternity houses to such an extent that they occupy about 15% of the houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood. By their very nature, fraternities are noisy and disruptive, with regular parties that include loud music and screaming, increased traffic, and activities such as drinking games that involve chanting and yelling, etc. They also tend to keep nocturnal hours. Courts throughout our country have ruled that fraternities are distinctly different from residential dwellings, including boarding houses and apartments, for the reasons mentioned. And it is likely why San Luis Obispo's regulations do not allow fraternities to operate in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and require a Use Permit in R-3 and R-4 zones. The illegal fraternities operate as full-fledged fraternity houses and rob us of the quiet enjoyment on our property every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. My daughter and son-in-law live a block from Sinsheimer Park but are currently staying with us while their house is being remodeled, and they are astounded at the non-stop noise from fraternities around our home every weekend. The number of parties in our neighborhood has grown over the past few years as more illegal fraternities have moved into rental homes. You can't possibly understand how horrible it is unless you live through it, which we are forced to do because we can't move. It is a complete nightmare. Loud parties at illegal fraternity houses in SLO's R1 and R2 neighborhoods make up a large portion of the noise complaints to SLOPD each weekend, from Thursday to Sunday. Usually a SNAP officer is dispatched, even though city policy has SLOPD officers responding to fraternity houses and not a SNAP officer. Most of the time, SNAP officers do not cite fraternity parties, as shown by reviewing the historical records from the SLOPD dispatch log. From personal experience, my husband and I have witnessed a SNAP officer walk up to a party, tell a guy guarding the front door, "You need to turn that down" then walk away without consequence. The party hosts did not turn the music down and we ended up calling SLOPD three times that night for the same party. On multiple occasions, we've seen SNAP officers break up the parties but they do not cite them. Instead, they clear the parties on the SLOPD dispatch log as negative violations. This emboldens the fraternities to continue to throw loud fraternity parties. It's been a continual cycle with some fraternity houses in our neighborhood. It is intolerable to live under the conditions, with the loud fraternity parties we are forced to endure every weekend. There are 17 fraternities in Cal Poly's Interfraternity Council (IFC) and at least 75 fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo, including main chapter houses and satellite houses. Only seven of those 75 fraternity houses have Use Permits and they are located in R3 and R4 zones. The Use Permits contain conditions for their operations, such as limiting occupancy and the hours of meetings a nd gatherings, regulation or prohibition of parties, parking plans, etc. The Use Permits state that they are overseen by the Community Development Director. The SLOMC and zoning ordinance does not allow fraternities to operate in R1 and R2 residential neighborhoods yet there are over 50 documented fraternity houses, including the main chapter houses, located in R 1 and R2 residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. I've attached the addresses with the source of documentation to this email. Last year, I provided an extensive, detailed report with documentation of the addresses of Cal Poly's fraternities, including the illegal fraternities in our neighborhoods, to Community Development Director Timmi Tway and Code Enforcement Supervisor John Mezzapesa. I also provided them with a link to a report on Cal Poly's Greek Life web page that lists the locations of all "sanctioned events" held by fraternities, and verifies the illegal fraternity operations at addresses in our neighborhood. I want to point out that Cal Poly has a list of all fraternity houses each year, including satellite houses, but refused to provide that information to the city of SLO and to me, through a public records request. Previously, I contacted Cal Poly and the city about illegal fraternity operations. Cal Poly told me it was in the city limits and not their responsibility. When the city contacted some of the fraternities, they denied they were operating as fraternities even though the house was occupied exclusively by fraternity 3 members and they had regular gatherings, including parties with sororities. Last year, Assembly Bill 524: The Campus- Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act required every college and university in California to publish a report annually with a list of the locations of their Greek Life activities. That's how we were able to cross-reference and verify the addresses of the illegal fraternities. It was not through any cooperation with Cal Poly. I think that's an important point and makes clear that the city needs to solve this problem rather than wait for "cooperation" from Cal Poly. Despite my report and verification of dozens of illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, the fraternities continue to operate and the noise on weekends is getting worse with the warmer weather. It is extremely unfair to the long-term residents and others who want peace that nothing has been done to rectify this known problem. Last weekend - 4/25 to 4/28- there were calls for loud parties at seven documented, illegal fraternities in our neighborhood. The weekend before last - 4/18 to 4/21 - there were calls for at least six documented, illegal fraternities although they were not all the same addresses as last weekend. I will cover just one of those fraternities cited last weekend in this email and will continue to follow up with information about the other fraternities so that you can better understand the situation for the residents. This week I will address 301 Hathway, Sigma Nu, which is in an R-2 zone, bordering a R-1 zone to the north. The house two doors up is where the R-1 zone begins. 301 Hathway - Sigma Nu Sigma Nu has occupied 301 Hathway for several years and is a known fraternity house by SLOPD. It has received multiple citations including an unruly gathering during St. Frattys on 3/18/2023. Below is the history of calls to SLOPD for the academic years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, with blue lines dividing the academic school years. The noise complaints to SLOPD increased with each academic year. The fraternity received a citation on 5/20/2023, which place s them on the "no warning" list for 9 months or until 2/20/2024. A property on the "no warning" list is not allowed to register a party through SLOPD's Party Registration Program and is also not eligible for a response from SNAP or a zero-fine Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC). If someone calls SLOPD for a noisy party for an address that is on the "no warning" list, it requires a police response and a citation with a fine is supposed to be issued if there is a verified noise violation. NOTE: Permitted fraternity houses are ALWAYS on the "no warning" list. Therefore, those fraternities that are operating illegally are able to circumvent the system of accountability set up by the city of SLO for fraternity houses. At the beginning of the academic year 2023-2024, SLOPD apparently removed 301 Hathway from the "no warning list" which cleared the way for the fraternity to register parties through SLOPD before 2/20/2024 (9 months from their last citation) and having SNAP respond to noise complaints with a DAC issued instead of SLOPD issuing a citation if there is a noise violation. The Party Registration Program is like a get-out-of-jail-free situation. When a property registers a party through SLOPD, and someone calls to complain about the loud party, there is no police response to the party regardless of the reported size or disturbance. Instead, a SLOPD dispatcher calls the party host and gives them 20 minutes to quiet down. Sigma Nu registered a party through SLOPD for 10/21/2023. Someone called to complain about the noisy party and there was no police response but SLOPD dispatch called the fraternity to tell them they have 20 minutes to quiet down. The dispatch log shows a number instead of a name for the "Responsible Officer", identifies the dispatcher call as "COM8" under "Units", and the noise complaint is cleared as "No Report". 4 If SLOPD had not prematurely removed the address from the "no warning" list, the fraternity would not have been eligible to register the party and the noise complaint would have required SLOPD response because the property had received a citation only five months earlier. Addresses stay on the "no warning" list for nine months after they are issued a noise citation. It doesn't make sense that this known fraternity was allowed to be removed from the no warning list. SLOPD set up the Early Removal Program that allows property owners to be removed from the "no warning" list if they fill out a form stating that they have a complete tenant turnover. But fraternity houses that occupy the same property year after year should not be allowed to escape accountability by claiming to have a turnover of tenancy. Notably, the property owners are also fined for noise citations, so they have an incentive to claim that there is a tenant turnover at their property because they revert to zero-fine DACs and eliminate the liability of progressive fines that are associated with noise citations. There is also no clause on the Early Removal form that requires the property to certify under penalty of perjury, which also should be required. Also, documented fraternity houses should not be allowed to use the early removal loophole. On Monday, 1/29/2024, Sigma Nu posted on their social media pages that they were hosting three live bands at their fraternity house at 301 Hathway on Friday 2/2/2024. Again, they registered their party through SLOPD's Party Registration Program . The city's webpage Party Registration states, in bold font "***NO LIVE BANDS OR DJs PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.*** On Friday night, 2/2/2024, our family could hear a live band from a house nearby. I walked down to find the address and called SLOPD at 9:28 p.m. to report the live band and loud party at 301 Hathway. As I was walking home, a SLOPD dispatcher left a 5 message on my cell phone saying: "They're registered with the city to have a party tonight so I gave them a warning. They have 20 minutes to turn down the noise..." Apparently, the police dispatcher did not know that parties with live bands are against the municipal code and are not allowed to register their parties through the city's program. I called her back at 9:33 p.m. to explain that live bands aren't allowed to register their parties and SLOPD should respond. Instead of sending a SLOPD officer because of the reported live band, she sent SNAP officer, Jeremy Ye, to respond to the party but the dispatch log does not show when he arrived and cleared the party. The call was cleared as a "Negative Violation" even though the live bands continued to play. This is typical when SNAP responds to fraternity parties in our neighborhood. It was frustrating that the noisy party and live bands continued for hours. I called SLOPD again at around 10 p.m. and the party still continued. At nearly 11 p.m. I got out of bed and walked back down to the party to confirm it was at the same address because it seemed unbelievable. It was a live band at a party at 301 Hathway so I called SLOPD again at 10:56 p.m. to report tha t the live band was still playing. Again, the party was cleared as a Negative Violation. Seemingly emboldened by the ability to evade citations on Friday 2/2, the very next night, Saturday 2/3/2024, Sigma Nu had another large fraternity party at 301 Hathway. SLOPD was called at 9:56 p.m. and a SNAP officer was dispatched. The fraternity was issued a DAC which has no monetary fine but advises the tenants about the SLOMC noise ordinance. The DAC states there were only 50 people at the party but I observed far more people than that. It may not matter, but I just want you to know that the number of people indicated on SLOPD's noise citations does not always accurately reflect the true number of attendees at a party. Now that the weather is getting warmer, fraternities are having loud parties during the daytime. They are referred to as a "dayge" which is short for 'daytime rage'. There are also parties at night, so there is no escape from the booming music and screaming all weekend in our neighborhood. Last weekend, on Saturday, 4/27/2024, Sigma Nu at 301 Hathway had a huge party with loud music in the backyard and crowds of people in the front and back. SLOPD was called at 2:35 p.m. and it was cleared at a Negative Violation. 6 There was music and screaming from several fraternities in our neighborhood. After hours passed, another family member went down to Hathway at 5:00 p.m. and observed the large fraternity party still in progress at 301 Hathway. SLOPD was called again and this time Sigma Nu was cited for a noise violation. Despite the DAC and citation, Sigma Nu has decided to have yet another party with three live bands at 301 Hathway on 5/10/2024. The event was posted on social media on 4/30/2024, after they received the noise citation on 4/27/2024. Sigma Nu at 301 Hathway is one of over 50 illegal fraternities in Alta Vista and lower Monterey Heights R-1/R-2 neighborhoods. Please let me know what is being done to stop the illegal fraternity operations in our neighborhoods so that we can return to a place where we enjoy peace in our home on weekends. Thank you for your help. 7 Very truly yours, Kathie Walker P.S. Next week I will feature 348/350 Hathway which is the main chapter house for Phi Sigma Kappa and has been issued over 20 noise citations in the past three years but continues to regularly throw loud parties. It was cited again last weekend. I have spoken with the property owner to no avail. 1 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2024 8:05 AM To:Scott, Rick; Kathie Walker Cc:Mezzapesa, John; McDonald, Whitney; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn; Brett Cross; Hermann, Greg Subject:RE: Illegal fraternities, Noise - What's being done?? BCC:CC Thank you, Chief Scott. Following-up with updates from Community Development – We continue to look into the Fraternity houses for zoning code violations as they come to our attention. The Code Enforcement team has begun sending advisory letters to all identified satellite houses that appear to be violating the zoning code with information to help them understand and comply with regulations. In addition, as specific violations are reported and confirmed through site visits and research, notices of violation are being issued. Staff has and continues to spend a considerable amount of time on this effort, due to the number of houses and reported events that are occurring. Community Development staff also works closely with the Police Department as we investigate complaints. In addition, to proactively educate the community, we have been hosting events and having conversations with Cal Poly and the student leadership to further reinforce the regulations and provide an opportunity for education and dialogue. John Mezzapesa met with Cal Poly leadership and Greek life student leaders of the Panhellenic Council to discuss zoning regulations and satellite houses in particular. We will continue to proactively hold conversations with the University and student groups. I hope you find this information helpful. We will continue to approach this complex issue from both an education and enforcement angle. Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 6:15 PM To: Kathie Walker < > Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn < ; Brett Cross < ; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Illegal fraternities, Noise - What's being done?? 2 BCC CC: Mrs. Walker, (Council Blind Copied) Thank you for reaching out with your concerns and we are aware of the issues regarding the satellite fraternity houses in your neighborhood. We have engaged our Code Enforcement department to explore longer term solutions to these issues, as zoning is outside of the police department. I know you have engaged Director Timmi Tway on these matters and she is included on this response. As for your specific concerns about noise complaints and the response from the police department, I want to assure you that I have thoroughly reviewed the actions taken by our officers. I have not found an occasion where officers have abused their discretion, as they work really hard to address noise complaints, but we understand not all parties are always satisfied with the outcomes of these actions. The Party registration program is an important tool aimed at managing noise disturbances and to mitigate the impact of parties. I am happy to report that the police department stopped allowing satellite houses to register their parties a couple months ago, consistent with your same concerns. You are correct that SNAP officers are limited in their authority to issue citations and are only tasked with issuing warnings. SNAP officers serve as a crucial resource in managing neighborhood issues such as noise and complement the efforts of our law enforcement officers. Given the demands on our police team, including responding to felony and misdemeanor crimes, enforcing traffic laws, as well as downtown safety, SNAP officers serve as a force multiplier, allowing us to effectively address a wider range of community issues and crimes. We appreciate your understanding of the division of responsibilities, and we remain committed to leveraging all available resources to address the challenges surrounding, crime, traffic, community issues, as well as noise as we understand this has a direct impact on quality of life. Finally, I want to emphasize our proactive approach to addressing concerns related to live bands. We understand the impact bands can have on noise levels and disruption in the neighborhood and they are not allowed. To this end, we have previously implemented measures to address such occurrences. Our enforcement team routinely visits hosts before scheduled events to advise them of the violation. Additionally, on the day of the event, we proactively monitor the location and are prepared to issue citations if live bands are still featured. We take these matters seriously, and when alerted to potential issues in advance, we take decisive action to deter such events, as exemplified by our preparations for the upcoming event on May 10th. With your partnership we’ve continued successfully pursuing avenues to mitigate the impact of noise in all of our neighborhoods even though at times it can be frustrating when our student community members have occasion to display a lack of awareness or thoughtfulness for their non-student neighbors. Thank you, Rick Scott Police Chief Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E rscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7256 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities 3 other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 11:08 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn < ; Brett Cross < ; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: Illegal fraternities, Noise - What's being done?? This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello All, We continue to have a huge problem with dozens of illegal fraternities in our neighborhood and I'd like to know what steps are being taken by the city to stop their operation. Despite the laws in San Luis Obispo that prohibit fraternities in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods per the municipal code and zoning/land use regulations, we have experienced the proliferation of fraternity houses to such an extent that they occupy about 15% of the houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood. By their very nature, fraternities are noisy and disruptive, with regular parties that include loud music and screaming, increased traffic, and activities such as drinking games that involve chanting and yelling, etc. They also tend to keep nocturnal hours. Courts throughout our country have ruled that fraternities are distinctly different from residential dwellings, including boarding houses and apartments, for the reasons mentioned. And it is likely why San Luis Obispo's regulations do not allow fraternities to operate in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and require a Use Permit in R-3 and R-4 zones. The illegal fraternities operate as full-fledged fraternity houses and rob us of the quiet enjoyment on our property every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. My daughter and son-in-law live a block from Sinsheimer Park but are currently staying with us while their house is being remodeled, and they are astounded at the non-stop noise from fraternities around our home every weekend. The number of parties in our neighborhood has grown over the past few years as more illegal fraternities have moved into rental homes. You can't possibly understand how horrible it is unless you live through it, which we are forced to do because we can't move. It is a complete nightmare. Loud parties at illegal fraternity houses in SLO's R1 and R2 neighborhoods make up a large portion of the noise complaints to SLOPD each weekend, from Thursday to Sunday. Usually a SNAP officer is dispatched, even though city policy has SLOPD officers responding to fraternity houses and not a SNAP officer. Most of the time, SNAP officers do not cite fraternity parties, as shown by reviewing the historical records from the SLOPD dispatch log. From personal experience, my husband and I have witnessed a SNAP officer walk up to a party, tell a guy guarding the front door, "You need to turn that down" then walk away without consequence. The party hosts did not turn the music down and we ended up calling SLOPD three times that night for the same party. On multiple occasions, we've seen SNAP officers break up the parties but they do not cite them. Instead, they clear the parties on the SLOPD dispatch log as negative violations. This emboldens the fraternities to continue to throw loud fraternity parties. It's been a continual cycle with some fraternity houses in our neighborhood. It is intolerable to live under the conditions, with the loud fraternity parties we are forced to endure every weekend. There are 17 fraternities in Cal Poly's Interfraternity Council (IFC) and at least 75 fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo, including main chapter houses and satellite houses. Only seven of those 75 fraternity houses have Use Permits and they are located in R3 and R4 zones. The Use Permits contain conditions for their operations, such as limiting occupancy and the hours of meetings a nd gatherings, regulation or prohibition of parties, parking plans, etc. The Use Permits state that they are overseen by the Community Development Director. The SLOMC and zoning ordinance does not allow fraternities to operate in R1 and R2 residential neighborhoods yet there are over 50 documented fraternity houses, including the main chapter houses, located in R 1 and R2 residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. I've attached the addresses with the source of documentation to this email. 4 Last year, I provided an extensive, detailed report with documentation of the addresses of Cal Poly's fraternities, including the illegal fraternities in our neighborhoods, to Community Development Director Timmi Tway and Code Enforcement Supervisor John Mezzapesa. I also provided them with a link to a report on Cal Poly's Greek Life web page that lists the locations of all "sanctioned events" held by fraternities, and verifies the illegal fraternity operations at addresses in our neighborhood. I want to point out that Cal Poly has a list of all fraternity houses each year, including satellite houses, but refused to provide that information to the city of SLO and to me, through a public records request. Previously, I contacted Cal Poly and the city about illegal fraternity operations. Cal Poly told me it was in the city limits and not their responsibility. When the city contacted some of the fraternities, they denied they were operating as fraternities even though the house was occupied exclusively by fraternity members and they had regular gatherings, including parties with sororities. Last year, Assembly Bill 524: The Campus- Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act required every college and university in California to publish a report annually with a list of the locations of their Greek Life activities. That's how we were able to cross-reference and verify the addresses of the illegal fraternities. It was not through any cooperation with Cal Poly. I think that's an important point and makes clear that the city needs to solve this problem rather than wait for "cooperation" from Cal Poly. Despite my report and verification of dozens of illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, the fraternities continue to operate and the noise on weekends is getting worse with the warmer weather. It is extremely unfair to the long-term residents and others who want peace that nothing has been done to rectify this known problem. Last weekend - 4/25 to 4/28- there were calls for loud parties at seven documented, illegal fraternities in our neighborhood. The weekend before last - 4/18 to 4/21 - there were calls for at least six documented, illegal fraternities although they were not all the same addresses as last weekend. I will cover just one of those fraternities cited last weekend in this email and will continue to follow up with information about the other fraternities so that you can better understand the situation for the residents. This week I will address 301 Hathway, Sigma Nu, which is in an R-2 zone, bordering a R-1 zone to the north. The house two doors up is where the R-1 zone begins. 301 Hathway - Sigma Nu Sigma Nu has occupied 301 Hathway for several years and is a known fraternity house by SLOPD. It has received multiple citations including an unruly gathering during St. Frattys on 3/18/2023. Below is the history of calls to SLOPD for the academic years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, with blue lines dividing the academic school years. The noise complaints to SLOPD increased with each academic year. The fraternity received a citation on 5/20/2023, which place s them on the "no warning" list for 9 months or until 2/20/2024. A property on the "no warning" list is not allowed to register a party through SLOPD's Party Registration Program and is also not eligible for a response from SNAP or a zero-fine Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC). If someone calls SLOPD for a noisy party for an address that is on the "no warning" list, it requires a police response and a citation with a fine is supposed to be issued if there is a verified noise violation. NOTE: Permitted fraternity houses are ALWAYS on the "no warning" list. Therefore, those fraternities that are operating illegally are able to circumvent the system of accountability set up by the city of SLO for fraternity houses. At the beginning of the academic year 2023-2024, SLOPD apparently removed 301 Hathway from the "no warning list" which cleared the way for the fraternity to register parties through SLOPD before 2/20/2024 (9 months from their last citation) and having SNAP respond to noise complaints with a DAC issued instead of SLOPD issuing a citation if there is a noise violation. The Party Registration Program is like a get-out-of-jail-free situation. When a property registers a party through SLOPD, and someone calls to complain about the loud party, there is no police response to the party regardless of the reported size or disturbance. Instead, a SLOPD dispatcher calls the party host and gives them 20 minutes to quiet down. Sigma Nu registered a party through SLOPD for 10/21/2023. Someone called to complain about the noisy party and there was no police response but SLOPD dispatch called the fraternity to tell them they have 20 minutes to quiet down. The dispatch log 5 shows a number instead of a name for the "Responsible Officer", identifies the dispatcher call as "COM8" under "Units", and the noise complaint is cleared as "No Report". If SLOPD had not prematurely removed the address from the "no warning" list, the fraternity would not have been eligible to register the party and the noise complaint would have required SLOPD response because the property had received a citation only five months earlier. Addresses stay on the "no warning" list for nine months after they are issued a noise citation. It doesn't make sense that this known fraternity was allowed to be removed from the no warning list. SLOPD set up the Early Removal Program that allows property owners to be removed from the "no warning" list if they fill out a form stating that they have a complete tenant turnover. But fraternity houses that occupy the same property year after year should not be allowed to escape accountability by claiming to have a turnover of tenancy. Notably, the property owners are also fined for noise citations, so they have an incentive to claim that there is a tenant turnover at their property because they revert to zero-fine DACs and eliminate the liability of progressive fines that are associated with noise citations. There is also no clause on the Early Removal form that requires the property to certify under penalty of perjury, which also should be required. Also, documented fraternity houses should not be allowed to use the early removal loophole. On Monday, 1/29/2024, Sigma Nu posted on their social media pages that they were hosting three live bands at their fraternity house at 301 Hathway on Friday 2/2/2024. Again, they registered their party through SLOPD's Party Registration Program . The city's webpage Party Registration states, in bold font "***NO LIVE BANDS OR DJs PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.*** 6 On Friday night, 2/2/2024, our family could hear a live band from a house nearby. I walked down to find the address and called SLOPD at 9:28 p.m. to report the live band and loud party at 301 Hathway. As I was walking home, a SLOPD dispatcher left a message on my cell phone saying: "They're registered with the city to have a party tonight so I gave them a warning. They have 20 minutes to turn down the noise..." Apparently, the police dispatcher did not know that parties with live bands are against the municipal code and are not allowed to register their parties through the city's program. I called her back at 9:33 p.m. to explain that live bands aren't allowed to register their parties and SLOPD should respond. Instead of sending a SLOPD officer because of the reported live band, she sent SNAP officer, Jeremy Ye, to respond to the party but the dispatch log does not show when he arrived and cleared the party. The call was cleared as a "Negative Violation" even though the live bands continued to play. This is typical when SNAP responds to fraternity parties in our neighborhood. It was frustrating that the noisy party and live bands continued for hours. I called SLOPD again at around 10 p.m. and the party still continued. At nearly 11 p.m. I got out of bed and walked back down to the party to confirm it was at the same address because it seemed unbelievable. It was a live band at a party at 301 Hathway so I called SLOPD again at 10:56 p.m. to report tha t the live band was still playing. Again, the party was cleared as a Negative Violation. Seemingly emboldened by the ability to evade citations on Friday 2/2, the very next night, Saturday 2/3/2024, Sigma Nu had another large fraternity party at 301 Hathway. SLOPD was called at 9:56 p.m. and a SNAP officer was dispatched. The fraternity was issued a DAC which has no monetary fine but advises the tenants about the SLOMC noise ordinance. The DAC states there were only 50 people at the party but I observed far more people than that. It may not matter, but I just want you to know that the number of people indicated on SLOPD's noise citations does not always accurately reflect the true number of attendees at a party. Now that the weather is getting warmer, fraternities are having loud parties during the daytime. They are referred to as a "dayge" which is short for 'daytime rage'. There are also parties at night, so there is no escape from the booming music and screaming all weekend in our neighborhood. Last weekend, on Saturday, 4/27/2024, Sigma 7 Nu at 301 Hathway had a huge party with loud music in the backyard and crowds of people in the front and back. SLOPD was called at 2:35 p.m. and it was cleared at a Negative Violation. There was music and screaming from several fraternities in our neighborhood. After hours passed, another family member went down to Hathway at 5:00 p.m. and observed the large fraternity party still in progress at 301 Hathway. SLOPD was called again and this time Sigma Nu was cited for a noise violation. Despite the DAC and citation, Sigma Nu has decided to have yet another party with three live bands at 301 Hathway on 5/10/2024. The event was posted on social media on 4/30/2024, after they received the noise citation on 4/27/2024. 8 Sigma Nu at 301 Hathway is one of over 50 illegal fraternities in Alta Vista and lower Monterey Heights R-1/R-2 neighborhoods. Please let me know what is being done to stop the illegal fraternity operations in our neighborhoods so that we can return to a place where we enjoy peace in our home on weekends. Thank you for your help. Very truly yours, Kathie Walker P.S. Next week I will feature 348/350 Hathway which is the main chapter house for Phi Sigma Kappa and has been issued over 20 noise citations in the past three years but continues to regularly throw loud parties. It was cited again last weekend. I have spoken with the property owner to no avail. 1 From:Christian, Kevin Sent:Thursday, May 30, 2024 8:28 AM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Cc:Corey, Tyler; Purrington, Teresa Subject:FW: Please forward to SLO City Planning Commissioners ASAP Attachments:San Luis Obispo Planning Commissioners.pdf; Cal Poly Fraternity Addresses w Documentation source (1).pdf; SLO CDD Legal Action for Fraternity Without Use Permit.pdf; Complaint against Alpha Epsilon Pi for excessive noise and p.pdf Timmi, The below correspondence was sent to the advisory body email address for the Planning Commission. Before I send it to them I wanted you to have a chance to review it as I understand that there may be an item on an upcoming PC agenda related to illegal satellite fraternities. Let me know if you have any direction before I forward this to the PC. Kevin Christian Deputy City Clerk City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E kchristi@slocity.org T 805.781.7104 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. 2 Thank you, Steve Walker 10.28.2023 496 Kentucky at Stafford 9.40pm SLOPD UTL (2).mp4 1 San Luis Obispo City Planning Commissioners, Imagine how you would feel if a big group of college-aged guys moved into the house next door to yours, in a lower density R-1/R-2 residential neighborhood, then attached Greek letters on their house or a fraternity flag on their flagpole, and began hosting large gatherings with blaring music, screaming guests, frequent drinking games with chanting, cheering and profanity. Parades of people come and go from Thursday through Saturday, stumbling by your house and shouting until 2 a.m. Rideshare drivers park in the road while loud, intoxicated guests load into and out of their cars throughout the night. Your yard is used as a bathroom for urine and vomit, and a trash can for discarded empty cans and bottles. The quiet enjoyment of your property is destroyed. Now imagine another nearly identical group of guys moving in across the street, too. And another one four doors down. And another three doors down, across the street. And another on the street behind you. And so on. This has happened to me and my family in our Alta Vista neighborhood near Cal Poly and has completely disrupted our lives over the past several years. Many of the long-term residents in our neighborhood, including former mayor/current city council member Jan Marx, gave up, sold their houses, and moved to quieter areas of the city. Ms. Marx did not realize that the satellite fraternity houses that surrounded her home at 265 Albert Drive were prohibited from operating in her R-1 zoned residential neighborhood, according to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) and zoning regulations. Unfortunately, the laws were not enforced by the city. In 2022, the New Times featured another neighbor, Kai Martin, who lived in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, across Grand Avenue to the east of our Alta Vista neighborhood. He also did not realize that the satellite fraternity house next door to him was prohibited from operating in his R-1 neighborhood. He only knew that SLOPD was not much help, despite his repeated noise complaints, and that his living situation had become untenable. (https://www.newtimesslo.com/news/nuisance-on-the-block-slos-long-term-residents-and-students- struggle-to-see-eye-to-eye-12546807) After the article was published, Kai and his wife sold their house on Hope Street to an investor who, ironically, leased it to a fraternity. 2 Most of the long-term residents who remain in our neighborhood cannot simply sell their homes and relocate. But the constant noise and other issues of living near dozens of illegal fraternity houses is a complete nightmare. We hope the city will do something to enforce its laws and regulations. I am a first-responder, EMS helicopter pilot and work 12 to 14-hour shifts for seven days straight, alternating weeks. My base is at Paso Robles airport which is about a 40-minute commute from our home. That leaves me limited time between my shifts to shower, eat, and sleep. It is imperative that I get adequate rest so I can safely transport my medical crew and patients, but that has been nearly impossible with the noisy fraternity parties near our home every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. It has also affected my wife, Kathie, and our teenage son. He has missed important morning classes at SLOHS because he is kept awake at night by loud fraternity parties and other late-night fraternity activities. Kathie and I have repeatedly called SLOPD to report the loud parties, but nothing has changed. We became familiar with the city ’s noise ordinance, that prohibits amplified noise from crossing the residential property line from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and prohibits noise that is “plainly audible at a distance of 50-feet from the noisemaker ” from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (SLOMC 9.12.050) We began paying attention to the SLOPD dispatch log and noticed that the loud fraternity parties we were calling into SLOPD were often cleared with a “Negative Violation” (NV), “Unable to Locate” (UTL), or “No Report” which means the party wasn’t a cited. We also noticed that much of the time, a non-sworn, college-student officer from the Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP) responded to the parties and cleared them with a NV or No Report. SNAP officers are not authorized to issue noise citations but can give a Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC) which is a warning without a monetary fine. Once a property receives a DAC, it goes on the “no warning” list and thereafter, a SLOPD officer will respond to a noise complaint for 9 months from the last noise citation. We later learned that SNAP officers are also not authorized to respond to fraternities and fraternities are not eligible for a DAC. A noise complaint for a fraternity requires a response from SLOPD. The problem is that only seven fraternity houses are operating legally, in an authorized R-3/R-4 zone with a use permit, whereas there are approximately 80 documented fraternity houses in the city. There are 18 fraternities in Cal Poly’s Interfraternity Council (IFC) and most fraternities have multiple houses that have regular fraternity parties and other fraternity events. Many of the main chapter houses are in R-1/R-2 residential neighborhoods. I want to emphasize that so-called “satellite” fraternity houses operate as full-fledged fraternity houses with enormous raucous parties, DJs, drinking games, etc. When the weather is nice, they host raging daytime parties that they call a “dayge” and often feature inflatable water slides, booming music and screaming all day. When I am working nightshift, it is impossible to sleep during the weekend with these daytime parties. We began documenting the noisy fraternity parties near our home with video and sent the video to SLOPD with a question about why they were not being cited. Initially, a SLOPD night watch commander took responsibility for the mistakes and reassured us that the officers were being educated about the city’s noise ordinance. Unfortunately, the night watch commander left his position after two months. The noisy fraternity parties continued nearly every weekend, and they often were not cited. We felt as though SLOPD’s failure to cite the parties sent a permissive message, and it’s no surprise that the fraternity parties and illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood increased exponentially over the past few years. 3 Kathie reached out to Cal Poly’s Greek Life and was told that fraternity operations within the city limits are not Cal Poly’s responsibility and suggested she contact SLOPD and/or Code Enforcement. Kathie contacted John Mezzapesa, the code enforcement supervisor for the city, and he explained: 1. The SLOMC/zoning regulations only allow fraternities and sororities to operate in R-3 and R-4 zones. They are prohibited in all other zones, including R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. 2. The SLOMC Land Use (Chapter 17.156) defines a fraternity or sorority as a “Residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational association that is affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings.” 3. Fraternities and sororities are required to have a use permit. Use permits outline the terms of the fraternity operation, including occupancy limits, whether parties are allowed, etc. Mr. Mezzapesa provided the seven use permits for the fraternities operating in San Luis Obispo. He also explained it is difficult to prove that a fraternity is operating at an address if the tenants and/or property owners deny they are a fraternity. This is frustrating because fraternities post photos of parties or dates of events and gatherings at their addresses in our neighborhood on social media, while denying that they are operating as a fraternity. Some examples are Sigma Nu next door to us at 1267 Fredericks Street, Delta Chi across the street at 1270 Fredericks Street, Beta Theta Pi at 1220 Fredericks Street, and Phi Gamma Delta at 1229 Fredericks Street. Sigma Nu moved out of 1267 Fredericks, but the other fraternities listed continue to operate illegally. Kathie submitted public records requests to Cal Poly for the addresses of their fraternity houses, including satellite houses, within San Luis Obispo. Cal Poly denied her public records requests. First, they cited privacy concerns but caselaw overcame that argument. On her second request, they claimed fraternities are independent organizations from Cal Poly. This is also untrue. Her only option is to file a writ with the court. Assembly Bill 524: The Campus Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act Meanwhile, the California legislature was working to pass Assembly Bill 524: The Campus Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act. AB 524 requires all colleges and universities to publish an annual report with information about their fraternities and sororities, including the addresses of the “sanctioned events” held by the organizations on the campus’s Greek Life webpage. Sororities have limitations on hosting parties, therefore 4 most of the sanctioned events held by Greek Life are at fraternities, including satellite fraternity houses. AB 524 passed in 2022 and mandated the AB 524 Reports to be published on October 1, 2023, and annually thereafter. During discussion and debate of AB 524, the California legislature found that it does not violate the student’s privacy rights to publish the address of their fraternity houses and locations of sanctioned fraternity events. In 2022-2023, Kathie researched each of the Cal Poly fraternities and located the addresses of dozens of fraternity houses based on their social media posts that advertise fraternity events, such as Rush Week activities, at their fraternity house locations. She was able to document at least 40 illegal fraternities in R-1/R-2 zones in our Alta Vista neighborhood, and at least 10 illegal fraternities in the lower Monterey Heights neighborhood. When Cal Poly published their AB 524 Report online, Kathie cross-referenced the addresses she had identified with those on the AB 524 Report and they were the same, which confirmed the locations of the fraternities. This academic year, 2023-2024, more fraternity houses began branching out into the neighborhoods west of Santa Rosa Street and several others popped up in our neighborhood including two compounds where multiple houses located together are fraternities: Theta Chi on the corner of Kentucky and Stafford (496 Kentucky & 1350 Stafford); and Phi Kappa Psi at 1251, 1253 and 1257 Stafford, are two examples. Kathie prepared a report with each fraternity house location, documentation about their operations, including photos of Greek letters at their homes, advertisements of Rush Week at specific addresses, and other evidence to show the illegal fraternity locations. She gave the report to Timmi Tway and John Mezzapesa during a meeting on 11/8/2023. has lived in their home on Stafford Street since reached out to Kathie last year because they were distressed to realize that a fraternity was occupying at 1350 Stafford. Kathie contacted Mr. Mezzapesa on the neighbor’s behalf and the city contacted the tenants/property owner at 1350 Stafford. The fraternity took the Greek letters down but continues to have loud fraternity parties which we can hear from our house on Fredericks Street. We’ve witnessed many very noisy parties at 1350 Stafford and there’s always a group of fraternity guys guarding the front door. It appears they are hosting a sorority based on guests coming and going. We’ve seen SNAP officers respond to multiple loud parties at that address but repeatedly clear them as “Negative Violation”. 5 Every year, more fraternity houses are established in lower density residential neighborhoods in the city. There are currently approximately 80 documented Cal Poly fraternity houses. 61 fraternities are illegally located in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and 12 fraternities are operating illegally in R-3 and R-4 zones without a use permit. Only 7 fraternities are operating legally, with use permits although one of those is suspended from Cal Poly, which is grounds for loss of the use permit according to the SLOMC. (See Attachment: “Cal Poly Fraternity Addresses w Documentation Source”) Lack of Oversight by the City of San Luis Obispo Obviously, we did not get here overnight but the problem with illegal fraternity houses in residential neighborhoods has grown exponentially over the past several years because the zoning laws have not been enforced by the city of San Luis Obispo. I think it’s important to acknowledge that historically, San Luis Obispo did enforce their zoning ordinance pertaining to the operation of fraternities in the city. The Community Development Department (CDD), SLOPD, and the city attorney worked together to ensure compliance, without hesitation or delay. I have attached one example from about 35 years ago. (See Attachment: “SLO CDD Legal Action for Fraternity Without Use Permit”) Within one month of a neighbor complaining to the CDD about an unpermitted fraternity house at 720 Foothill which is zoned R-4, the city went to the property then sent a letter to the fraternity telling them that they must immediately apply for a use permit. The fraternity failed to apply for a use permit and continued to host parties. Five months later, a frustrated neighbor contacted SLOPD, and an officer took a report and prepared a sworn declaration for the city attorney. The city attorney filed a criminal complaint against the fraternity in municipal court for operating without a use permit. The fraternity was arraigned a month later, fined, placed on probation and ordered to apply for a use permit within 30 days. When we bought our property over 15 years ago, there was a mix of residents in our neighborhood, including young and older professionals, college students, retirees, etc. We formed good relationships with our student neighbors. A few fraternities were operating illegally on Hathway Avenue which is zoned R-1/R-2 but there were no others in any area of our neighborhood. Presumably, the city knew about the illegal fraternities on Hathway. Through her research, Kathie found a report prepared by Cal Poly in 2015 after the roof collapsed on St. Frattys Day, 3/7/2015, when the roof of a garage on Hathway Avenue. The report was submitted to the city of San Luis Obispo, and it was attached to an Agenda Report for the City Council. City management was aware of the report’s findings which states that St. Fratty’s Day was founded in 2009 by the fraternity at “the pink house” at 348 Hathway. It also says the party was fueled by other fraternities on Hathway Avenue. SLOPD was also familiar with the illegal fraternity houses on Hathway because they were dispatched to obvious fraternity parties throughout this time. The city did not take any action to shut down the illegal operation of the fraternity at 348 Hathway, which is zoned R-2, or other known fraternities on Hathway such as 301 Hathway (R-2) and 281 Hathway (R-1) despite Cal Poly’s report after roof collapse and SLOPD’s knowledge of their existence. This lack of oversight has led rapid expansion of dozens of illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo in less than a decade. It has driven out permanent residents and changed the fabric of our neighborhood to the point that it is impossible to rest Thursday through Sunday while Cal Poly is in session. Aside from St. Fratty’s Day which had 7,000 people converging into our neighborhood this year, the illegal fraternities have also caused the evolution of “Halloweekend” when thousands of people overtake our 6 neighborhood on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights nearest to October 31st. The fraternities host costume parties with blaring music each night. Equally disruptive are the loud parades of people walking from one fraternity party to the next, screaming to each other across the road or down the block. It is absolute hell for three nights. Many Cal Poly students posted about the event on the social media platform Yik Yak: SLOPD is overwhelmed and seems unable to handle the sheer number of parties and people during Halloweekend. According to SLOPD’s dispatch log, during last year’s Halloweekend, 10/26 – 10/29/2023, there were 120 calls to SLOPD for noisy parties. SNAP issued 30 DACs and 75 calls were cleared as Negative Violations (NV), No Report, or Unable to Locate (UTL). Of the 120 calls, SLOPD wrote 15 citations. I want to cover just one of over a dozen parties we witnessed and documented that were not cited by SLOPD during Halloweekend. On 10/28/2023, there was a loud party at the illegal fraternity, Theta Chi, on the corner of Kentucky and Stafford (496 Kentucky and 1350 Stafford.) SLOPD was called at 8:30 p.m. for the noisy party and SLOPD cleared the call as a “Negative Violation”. At around 9:30 p.m. someone else in the neighborhood called to report a “large party at Kentucky and Stafford”. SLOPD cleared the call at 9:32 p.m. “Unable to Locate” even though it was an obvious party with people spilling out of the house and onto the sidewalks on Kentucky and Stafford. Minutes later, at around 9:38 p.m. we drove over to the party location at Kentucky and Stafford -around the corner from our house- and saw a lot of people in the yard and around the house on the corner of Kentucky and Stafford. One person was plugging her ears because it was so loud. We took video of the situation and Kathie called SLOPD to report the party. The dispatcher asked her to clarify that there was a party because it had just been cleared by SLOPD. Shortly afterward, SLOPD arrived and issued a noise citation with a notation that there were 200 people. (See video, attached” “10.28.2023 496 Kentucky at Stafford 9.40 pm SLOPD UTL”) Obvious fraternity parties are often cleared by SLOPD as a NV, UTL or No Report. History of Noise Complaints to SLOPD at Illegal Fraternity Houses in R-1/R-2 Residential Neighborhoods 7 A couple years ago, SLOPD leadership acknowledged in an email that they are aware of the satellite fraternity houses throughout our neighborhood, but stated SLOPD does not treat them as the same as they do legal fraternities with use permits. Several satellite fraternity houses in R-1/R-2 residential neighborhoods are the main chapter houses for their fraternities. One example is Phi Sigma Kappa. They have two fraternity houses: a satellite house at 1901 Loomis (R-1) and their main chapter house at 348/350 Hathway (R-2) which is the notorious “pink house” where St. Fratty’s Day was founded in 2009. A few years ago, the house was painted red and is now called “the barn”. During the past 1 ½ years, October 2022 – May 2024, SLOPD has been called 30 times for noisy parties at 348/350 Hathway Avenue and have issued 16 noise citations including a Report Filed for a citation. There are no noise complaints during summer, from mid-June to mid-September. If you include the previous year from 2021, there are 47 calls to SLOPD for noisy parties and 25 noise citations, including an additional “Report Filed” (RF) but I have only included calls the past 1 1/2 years below: Some parties listed were cleared as a negative violation (NV) but were actually violations of the noise ordinance. Kathie sent videos of parties that were cleared as NV to SLOPD and a SLOPD watch commander acknowledged in an email that the parties were "a clear violation" of the noise ordinance. He said the oversight by not citing the parties was handled internally with the officers. There were also at least two calls for noisy parties that do not show up on the SLOPD log, so they are not documented except by videos of the parties and phone logs showing the calls were made to SLOPD. Somehow, city management has overlooked the illegal fraternities and the problems they have caused as they have crept further into residential neighborhoods. The CDD oversees the use permits for fraternities and 8 sororities but has not proactively enforced the zoning regulations for the illegal fraternity houses in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, or those without use permits in R-3 and R-4 neighborhoods. 280 California: Alpha Epsilon Pi Complaint The Community Development Department has also ignored a complaint we made against Alpha Epsilon Pi at 280 California Blvd on 2/5/2024 for repeated violations of their use permit including large, disruptive late-night parties that could be heard from a block away. The fraternity house backs up to Hathway Avenue at the end of Fredericks Street. We spoke with the city manager, Derek Johnson, about the issue and he suggested we file a complaint, which we did. Alpha Epsilon Pi also operates an illegal fraternity at 331 Hathway, which is next to the main chapter house and is zoned R-2. Over the course of 10 months, Alpha Epsilon Pi at 280 California Blvd was issued 6 noise citations, including 2 unruly gatherings, which was the basis for the complaint. There were also other noise complaints for loud parties that were not cited by SLOPD. I have attached the complaint, for your reference. Condition 1 of the use permit limits occupancy of the house to 19 people, including the resident manager. Condition 12 of the use permit states, “No meetings, parties, or other types of activities involving persons other than residents living on site shall be allowed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m.” The noise citations listed in the complaint were issued after 10 p.m. with 250 people at one party and 150 at another party. Condition 5 of the use permit states, “The use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at any time, if any reasonable written citizen… complaint is received by the city. In review of the use permit, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify conditions of approval or may revoke the use permit.” It’s been nearly four months since our complaint was filed and the CDD has not taken any action to have our complaint reviewed by the Planning Commission, as outlined in the terms of the fraternity’s use permit. Kathie has emailed CDD multiple times about the matter without any resolution. Since our complaint was filed, Alpha Epsilon Pi at 280 California has had additional noise complaints and has been issued three more noise citations. The number of people was not noted on the 2/10/2024 citation, but on 5/10/2024 there were 50 people and 100 people on 5/17/2024. Each of the parties was after 10 p.m. 9 If the conditions of a use permit are not followed, especially when a complaint is filed according to the terms outlined in the use permit, then the use permit serves no meaningful purpose. I urge you to direct the CDD to enforce the conditions of the use permits issued to fraternities in the city. There needs to be accountability for the operations of fraternities because people who live nearby are gravely affected. Finally, below is a map that was prepared in October 2023 for Kathie’s report to the city that shows Cal Poly’s fraternities, including those operating illegally in lower-density neighborhoods. The map is missing a couple of fraternities discovered since it was made but gives you a general idea of the volume and location of the fraternity operations. Presently, there are only seven use permits for six different fraternities in San Luis Obispo. Thank you for your time. It’s a complicated issue. I especially appreciate your consideration when granting future Use Permits to fraternities. It’s important to realize that a fraternity house has a very large impact on their neighbors and protections must be in place for those nearby to enable them the quiet enjoyment of their property which is afforded to all Californians 1. It’s also essential that complaints against the Use Permits be taken seriously. Very truly yours, Steve Walker 1 Calif Heath & Safety Code §46000 (f) All Californians are entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment without the intrusion of noise which may be hazardous to their health or welfare. CAL POLY SLO FRATERNITY HOUSES1 Fraternity, # members Address Status of Operation Documentation2 Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT (U1099) 8/2/1983 AB 524 list + 331 Hathway Ave (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + Alpha Sigma Phi 1218 Bond Street (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 299 Albert Drive (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + Beta Theta Pi 1327 E. Foothill Blvd (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list + 1220 Fredericks St (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 556 Hathway (R2) (per Kappa Kappa Gamma, CP list 5/18/2023) AB 524 list 68 Chorro (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION - Anholm AB 524 list + Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista Place (R4) USE PERMIT (U 106-98) 8/12/1998 AB 524 list + 1270 Fredericks (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New 2023, Rush Events Delta Upsilon 720 E. Foothill Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT (U 36-09) 6/24/2009 AB 524 list + 1700 Fredericks (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 281 Albert (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 388 Chaplin (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 1555 Slack (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + Kappa Sigma 108 Crandall Way (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list 322 Hathway (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 281 Hathway (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 526 Kentucky (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 1990 McCollum (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list 1142 Montalban (T-C) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Commerical AB 524 list 293 Albert (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista Social media post+ 1861 Hope (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list Lambda Chi Alpha 1264 Foothill Blvd (R4) NO USE PERMIT FOR 1264 FOOTHILL AB 524 list + USE PERMIT FOR 1292 Foothill (U-109 05) occupied by Sigma Nu, permit stays w/address 1241 Monte Vista (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list 1243 Monte Vista (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list 171 Orange (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 12 Hathway (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 253 Albert Drive (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New in 2023- Rush + 278 Albert Drive (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 285 Chaplin (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista 1 Houses located in residential zones R-1 and R-2 zones are highlighted in yellow 2 “AB 524” means the address is listed on Cal Poly Greek Life website, AB 524 Sorority & Fraternity Transparency Act Report, where a ‘sanctioned event’ was held; “+” symbol means that the fraternity advertised the address on social media for rush events, there are photos of fraternity with their Greek letters at the property address, etc. All this evidence is included in the Cal Poly Fraternity and Neighborhood Impact Report. 178 Chaplin (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list Phi Delta Theta 470 Grand Ave (R1) ILLLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH Social media post + 260 Chaplin Ln (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New 2023 – Rush Event + 251 Highland Dr (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – N of Foothill Rush Event + 568 Ellen Way (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – SR Park Area Rush Event + Phi Gamma Delta 1254 Bond (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 1256 Bond (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 385 Chaplin (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 1229 Fredericks St. (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New 2023, Rush Event + Phi Kappa Psi 1335 E. Foothill (R4) USE PERMIT (U 47-10) 6/13/2013 AB 524 list+ 237 Albert Drive (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 2061 Hope (R-1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH New 2023, Rush Event + 1271 Stafford (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New in 2023 + 1273 Stafford (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New in 2023 + 1275 Stafford (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New in 2023 + 346 Grand (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH AB 524 list 1740 Fredericks (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list Phi Sigma Kappa 348 & 350 Hathway (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 1908 Loomis (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH AB 524 list + Pi Kappa Phi 740 W. Foothill Blvd (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list + 2090 Hays (R1) (2023 became Sigma Phi Epsilon) AB 524 list 134 Orange Dr (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista 447 N. Chorro (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – N of Foothill 2023 Rush Event + 66 Rafael Way (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – S of Foothill 2023 Rush Event + Sigma Nu 1304 Foothill Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT (U1484) 05/08/1991 AB 524 list 1292 Foothill (R4) USE PERMIT (U-109 05) see Lambda Chi Social media post + 301 Hathway (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 248-250 Grand Ave (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH AB 524 list + 1621 McCollum (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list 290 Chaplin (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista Social media post + Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays (R-1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH New 2023 Rush Event + 1725 Santa Barbara3 ILLEGAL LOCATION AB 524 list Sigma Pi 1525 Slack (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 3 Sigma Phi Epsilon relocated to 2090 Hays. It’s unclear if they still occupy 1725 Santa Barbara. 124 Stenner (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list + Theta Chi 1238 E. Foothill (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list 1441 Slack (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list 496 Kentucky (R2) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New in 2023 Rush Event + 1350 Stafford (R2)4 ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista New in 2023 Rush Event + 1820 Hope (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH AB 524 list 410 Grand Ave (R1)5 ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH New in 2023 + 191 Kentucky (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list 2149 Santa Ynez (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH AB 524 list 1661 McCollum (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list Zeta Beta Tau 654 Graves (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list + 658 Graves (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list + 286 California (R4) NO USE PERMIT – Alta Vista 1928 Garfield (R4) NO USE PERMIT AB 524 list 244 Albert Drive (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Alta Vista AB 524 list + 2044 Loomis (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH AB 524 list 1841 Slack (R1) ILLEGAL LOCATION – Lower MH AB 524 list Alpha Gamma Rho 132 California Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT (U 144-97) 12/10/1997 (Not in Good Standing with Cal Poly, Suspended until Fall 2025 *) *SLOMC 17.86.130 Fraternities and Sororities: A. 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 Located next to 496 Kentucky, 1350 Stafford is the 2-story building with Greek letters (for Theta Chi) mounted on top level of building as shown in photos in the Cal Poly Fraternity Neighborhood Impact Report. 5 Located across the street from 1820 Hope, both have Theta Chi flags 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Sunday, June 2, 2024 9:24 PM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John; McDonald, Whitney; Hermann, Greg; E-mail Council Website Subject:Illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods Attachments:147221061-Cal-Poly-Deferred-Recruitment-Compromise.pdf; Party Registration Policy Cal Poly Fraternities (5).pdf; Complaint against Alpha Epsilon Pi for excessive noise and p (2) (2).pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Since a fraternity moved in next door to our house last year on Fredericks Street, which completely upended our lives, I have:  researched the SLOMC and zoning regulations and discovered fraternities, including satellite fraternities, are illegal in SLO;  spent many months documenting the illegal satellite fraternity houses in SLO using their social media posts, photos of Rush Events and other fraternity-related gatherings;  cross-referenced those addresses I documented with the addresses listed in Cal Poly's AB 524 Report (Assembly Bill 524: Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act, mandates Cal Poly publish a report annually, beginning on 10/1/2023, with the location of all fraternity "sanctioned events" which are mostly held at satellite fraternity houses) and found those locations matched my documentation;  prepared a substantial and extremely detailed report of each fraternity, and pointed out discrepancies in city's policies, such as allowing fraternities to register parties until 2 a.m. when their use permits do not allow parties after 10 p.m. and allowing satellite fraternity houses to "certify" they've had a turnover of tenancy to get a clean slate for citation history, erasing the liability for increased fines;  continued to update the John about continuing fraternity events at the illegal satellite houses and noise citations that are issued to the documented addresses of satellite fraternity houses. I have also made contact with SLOPD regarding their failure to cite obvious noise violations and provided video. As most of you know (sorry to be a broken record) my husband needs to be able to sleep because of his job as a first responder EMS helicopter pilot because he works 12-14 hour shifts for seven days straight. Sometimes day- shift and sometimes night-shift. He must be able to rest between shifts so he can safely fly his patients and med crew. He has had to call out sick from work because he was kept awake by fraternity activities in our neighborhood, day and night. Our teenage son also needs to be able to sleep because he has demanding classes at SLOHS and wants to do his best because he wants to go to his dream college. He has missed morning honors and AP classes because he was kept awake by fraternity activities in our neighborhood, and his grades have also been affected by these constant disturbances. My only goal in making these extraordinary efforts to get the illegal fraternities out of our residential neighborhood is to gain back peace in my home, where my husband and I have raised our sons, and have the ability to enjoy my property with my family whom I love enormously. That's it. I just want to be able to sleep, know that my husband is safe, that our son is happy, garden in my yard, without hearing booming music and screaming people and being constantly woken up and distressed. 2 I have counted on you to take the documentation I provided to Timmi and John during our meeting on 11/2/2023, which is thorough and extremely clear, and enforce the municipal code and zoning ordinance to stop fraternities from operating, and enforce the conditional use permits for those who have them. Yet the complaint we filed on 2/5/2024 for the repeated, flagrant violations of the use permit for the fraternity at 280 California Avenue was never acted on (attached). And illegal fraternities continue with their madness with constant parties every week, beginning on Thursday. It has been a nonstop nightmare! And now, because the fraternity members know about my efforts, they have targeted me. I have been cyberstalked with accounts opened on Pornhub using my personal information, notifications that I have a sexually transmitted disease, craigslist ads posting free stuff at my address, had "appointments" with religious organizations show up at my door, received hundreds of phone calls from car dealerships for appointments. I have been doxxed on Reddit and Cal Poly's YikYak (found by my daughter who teaches at Cal Poly), had my full name and address posted claiming I was hosting an early-morning St. Frattys Day party at my home address this year. And early this morning, some frat guys yelled some despicable things from the street. They called me a bitch, a slut, one told me to suck his dick and another told me to kill myself. I have attached a video so you can hear for yourself. They know my name because of my work toward getting the illegal frats out of our residential neighborhoods because I want to live a peaceful, normal life with my family in our residential neighborhood, which you probably get to do. And we did so, too, before 5-10 years ago when dozens of satellite fraternities moved into our neighborhood, and increased their presence exponentially. There was a significant shift during the COVID-19 pandemic. I, and my neighbors, deserve better. So many people have been chased out of this neighborhood, including Jan Marx, because of the illegal fraternities and the noisy parties that are unique to fraternities. It's not right that long-term residents have had to flee their long-term homes to get peace. The city knew that there were illegal fraternities on Hathway when the roof collapsed on St. Frattys Day in 2015, outlined in Cal Poly's report, yet did nothing to shut them down. Then the problem grew. The city knew that there are 18 fraternities at Cal Poly, and they each have multiple houses, yet there are only seven conditional use permits exist for fraternities in SLO. We can't undo the past but change needs to happen now. New legislation should be enacted to better define satellite fraternity houses with proactive enforcement. I have attached Cal Poly's Party Registration Guidelines that were adopted as part of a settlement following the death of Carson Starkey from alcohol poisoning in 2008 at a satellite fraternity house. His family sued, in 2010 Cal Poly stopped allowing Greeks to recruit in the fall, and in 2013 they came up with a "Deferred Recruitment Compromise" which includes the attached document for party registration. Cal Poly administration and Greek life agreed to the rules, including the definition of satellite fraternity house and the mandate that parties be reported 5-10 days beforehand to Cal Poly. The city should also step up and create their own definition and rules for operations of satellite fraternity houses because things are out of control and getting worse each year. Cal Poly is not going to help solve this problem for the city. You need to figure it out and take care of the residents. I appreciate your hard work toward solving this problem. -Kathie Walker To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 6.2.2024 Kathie Walker.mp4 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. arty Registration Policy and Guidelines of the Interfraternity Council, the Panhellenic Council, and the United Sorority & Fraternity Council at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. This policy expects members to abide by all federal, state, county, and local regulations governing the use, distribution, and consumption of alcohol. It shall become effective for and enforced by all members and chapters of the Interfraternity Council (IFC), Panhellenic Council (PHA), and United Sorority & Fraternity Council (USFC) at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo as of February 12, 2014. The Party Registration Policy and Guidelines aims to provide the safest possible social atmosphere for the members of the Greek Community and their guests, while allowing attendees to exercise the personal responsibility expected of students at Cal Poly. The following objectives are essential to achieving this aim: • To encourage social responsibility in all members; • To encourage responsible alcohol use and thereby reduce the risks associated with alcohol misuse at social events; • To increase the safety of everyone in attendance at chapter-sponsored social events; • To decrease legal liability for chapters, their officers, members, members' parents, advisors, house corporation boards, and Inter/National organizations; • To support the ideals and values on which our fraternities and sororities are founded; • To practice self-governance as a Greek Community; • To educate the general membership of the Greek Community about the importance of risk management. Table of Contents ARTICLE I – What defines a party? ........................................................................................................... 3 ARTICLE II – Locations ............................................................................................................................. 3 ARTICLE III – When a party can be hosted ............................................................................................... 3 ARTICLE IV – Sources of Alcohol ............................................................................................................. 4 ARTICLE V – Bring Your Own Beverage (BYOB) ................................................................................... 4 ARTICLE VI – Third Party Vendor ............................................................................................................ 4 ARTICLE VII – Guest Lists ........................................................................................................................ 4 ARTICLE VIII – Risk Reduction ................................................................................................................. 5 ARTICLE IX – Risk Management ............................................................................................................... 6 ARTICLE X - Transportation ....................................................................................................................... 7 ARTICLE XI - Registration Process ............................................................................................................ 7 ARTICLE XII - Retention Policy of Guest Lists .......................................................................................... 8 ARTICLE XIII - Judicial .............................................................................................................................. 8 ARTICLE XIV - Amnesty Policy ................................................................................................................. 8 ARTICLE XV - Good Faith ......................................................................................................................... 9 ARTICLE XVI - Interim Policy Review ...................................................................................................... 9 Events with alcohol should adhere to the Dean of Students Greek Life Alcohol and Drugs Policy found at the link below. If a chapter’s National/International Organization’s policy is different from that of the University prescribed policy, the chapter will be expected to abide by the stricter policy. http://studentlife.calpoly.edu/greek/info_resources/policies.asp ARTICLE I – What defines a party? A. In keeping with the Dean of Students Greek Life Alcohol and Drugs policy, one or more of the following points will define an alcohol related social event: i. The event occurs while at a chapter facility or satellite house. ii. During a fraternity or sorority event. iii. In any situation sponsored or endorsed by the chapter. iv. At any event an observer would associate with the fraternity or sorority. ARTICLE II – Locations A. All off-campus parties must be held at either the chapter facility, registered satellite house, or a contracted third party venue. i. Note: A satellite house is any residence where the majority of occupants are members of the chapter for the purpose of this policy. B. For all parties that are located at a third party venue, a copy of the contract with the chapter and event management company or third party venue must be submitted with the party registration. ARTICLE III – When a party can be hosted A. In a quarter where there is a formal recruitment period as defined by the respective Greek Councils, there shall be no “signature” or large annual parties hosted one week prior to the first day of classes of the quarter until the recruitment period is over. i. Chapters can host closed parties at an off campus third party venue, where no potential new members can attend, including but not limited to “Exchanges”. ii. A large party would be defined as an event with more than 200 individuals in attendance at one specific time for the purpose of this policy. B. No parties shall be permitted during finals week. For the purpose of this policy, finals week will begin on the Sunday before final exams at 5:00pm and end at noon on Friday of final exams. C. Night/evening parties are permitted only on days when school is not in-session the following day and must end by 1:00am. D. Day parties are permitted only on days when school is not in-session and must end by 8:00pm. E. Parties may not exceed a 5 hour duration. i. Alcohol may not be served or new alcohol containers opened an hour prior to the end of the event. ii. Sober monitors are responsible for preventing open containers from leaving the facility. F. Chapters may request this section to be waived for a special event and the appropriate Cal Poly Official shall make this determination. ARTICLE IV – Sources of Alcohol A. Per Cal Poly Risk Management Guidelines, no alcoholic beverages may be purchased through or with chapter funds. B. Alcohol present at parties must strictly adhere to BYOB or licensed 3rd party vendor guidelines. C. Common sources of alcohol are strictly prohibited. i. Common sources of alcohol include but are not limited to: kegs, handles, cases, and other large volumes. ARTICLE V – Bring Your Own Beverage (BYOB) A. Only those of legal drinking age in California may bring and consume alcohol. B. Permitted alcohol can only be made available in one designated space. C. Individuals of legal drinking age may bring beer totaling no more than 72 oz (equivalent to a six pack of 12oz beers) or one bottle (750ml) of wine to the event. D. No hard alcohol, squeeze bottles, water bottles, beer bongs, party bongs, party balls, pitchers, tumblers, or other containers are permitted. No glass is permitted other than glass bottles of wine (750ml) in size or less. i. If a chapter has different guidelines than this section the more restrictive of the two shall be enforced. ARTICLE VI – Third Party Vendor A. A third party vendor is a business licensed to sell alcohol, with a current California ABC license. B. Alcohol may not be served an hour prior to the end of the event. C. Third party vendors shall only serve alcohol to individuals of legal drinking age. D. Third party vendors shall not serve inebriated individuals. E. Third party vendors must have current liquor liability insurance. F. A copy of the contract with a third party vendor must be submitted with the party registration. i. The contract must state that the third party vendor is required to have a valid California ABC license for the party. ARTICLE VII – Guest Lists A. All parties must be closed events with a guest list. B. There shall be no advertising of a party that would encourage uninvited guests to attend, including flyers, banners, or other media. i. Advertisements that obviously and clearly state that the party is closed and will have a guest list are excluded from this provision. C. Guest lists must be typed and finalized no later than 24 hours before the party. i. Chapters may request this section to be waived for a special event and the appropriate Cal Poly Official shall make this determination. D. Chapters must have a way of screening guests and requiring all guests to show proof of age and identity upon entering. i. Guests shall be marked off on a copy of the guest list when they arrive. ii. No one under age 18 may be permitted, even if they are the relatives of a chapter member. Only currently enrolled students who are under the age of 18 may enter the event by showing a current university ID. 1. Exception: Parties during Parents Weekend, Open House, and other similar weekends may have under age attendees present who are relatives of a chapter member’s family, and must be accompanied at all times by the legal guardian of the minor(s) to ensure safety and accountability. ARTICLE VIII – Risk Reduction It should be noted that the terms “sober monitor,” “risk manager,” and “risk management team” are used interchangeably in the following section. These terms refer to one group of people for each party who are to remain sober before and during the party itself. A. A sober executive training is to be completed by the chapter's executive board and any member holding a position that plans events. This training will take place within thirty (30) days of the board member taking office and will be led by the Coordinators of Fraternity and Sorority Life in consultation with Safer, RISE, and the Cal Poly Title IX office. The trained sober executive board members must appropriately train any chapter member who will act as a sober monitor for an event no more than one-week prior. The curriculum will include, but is not limited to, the following points: a. Fraternal Information Programming Group (FIPG) Risk Management Practices b. How to register an event c. Responsibilities of different event coordinators d. Policy coverage i. Amnesty policy ii. Title IX investigation process iii. Guest list policies and accounting for both genders equally e. Extensive sober monitor duties and expectations including: i. Bystander intervention ii. Symptoms of alcohol poisoning iii. Identifying and responding to red flag situations f. Review quiz B. The risk management team will include at least one executive board member who will act as the team’s leader as well as an appropriate percentage of the chapter. a. The event will have, at minimum, one sober monitor per 30 guests. b. It is recommended that risk managers are not first-years or members of the newest pledge class. First-years should, however, be required to shadow the risk management team before serving as a sober monitor. C. Each member of the risk management team shall be delegated a responsibility prior to the start of the event. It is recommended that this responsibility extend through the entire duration of the event. Each individual’s role will be specified in the Party Registration process. These responsibilities should include, but are not limited to: a. Sober Executive: The sober executive will oversee all risk management procedures for the chapter’s event and step in where he or she feels it is necessary. b. Entrance Security: This team of sober monitors will oversee access controls. This includes verifying who is allowed to enter the event and controlling the event’s wristband procedures. This procedure is explained in detail in Article IX, Point C. There will be a minimum of two sober monitors at the event’s entrance and exit, and one stationed at any part of the house or venue that is restricted to guests. c. Event Management Security: The event security team will be in place to monitor guests and to be alert to risky situations. If anyone under the age of 21 is found to have received alcohol from someone of legal drinking age, the event security team will force both guests to leave immediately. The team will immediately contact emergency services if a guest is causing danger to him or herself or to other guests. D. Each co-hosting chapter, when applicable, will have an equal number of sober monitors responsible for monitoring their chapter’s membership. E. Sober monitors will be easily identifiable to guests in a way that is standardized among all chapters. a. Sober monitors will be provided black shirts from their respective councils with “SECURITY” printed on the back. b. This point does not apply to events at third-party vendors with hired security. F. The event's risk management team will establish a group messaging system, a walkie-talkie system, or equivalent to ensure a timely response to risky situations. G. The chapter will provide equal amounts of individual bottled waters as there are guests. Additionally, chapters should provide ample non-salty foods and equally attractive non-alcoholic beverages in a visible location, the purpose of which is to shift the focus away from primarily alcohol consumption. H. There will only be one available entrance and exit, not including mandated emergency exits, throughout the duration of the event. Sober monitor(s) will be stationed at any entrance and exit, as specified above. I. The chapter’s risk manager must complete a post-event review, which is to be submitted to the respective Judicial Council by 12:00 Noon the Wednesday following the event. All sober monitors and sober executive members will contribute to this review. For events where there may be more than one chapter acting as the event’s host, each chapter must complete a post-event form. This form will address the following points: a. Were the objectives of the event met? b. What went well at the event? c. What can be improved upon? d. Incident reports. e. Room for additional comments. J. Each Council’s Risk Management Committee shall hold quarterly Risk Management roundtables to facilitate discussion between each chapter’s Risk Management chairs. This will be a time to share best practices between chapters and collaborate with the goal of increasing overall safety. The roundtable will address, but is not limited to, the following topics: a. Most recent update from the campus’ Sexual Assault Task Force. b. Practices to decrease risk at chapter events (e.g., review and critique sober monitor training programs, review trends from post-event review forms, etc.) c. Practices to decrease risk at non-chapter events (e.g., current collaboration proposal with SLO Safe Ride to ensure individuals can get to and from downtown safely.) ARTICLE IX – Risk Management A. No shots, drinking games, or other activities that encourage inappropriate drinking behaviors shall be allowed. B. Sober monitors are responsible for preventing open containers from leaving the facility. C. Chapters holding a party must develop a wristband system (no stamps, pens or markers) that identifies individuals who are 21 and of legal drinking age. Ascertaining proof of legal drinking age is the sole responsibility of the sponsoring chapter and any security the chapter has hired. a. Chapters may not allow anyone visibly under the influence of alcohol to enter their event, even if he/she is 21 and of legal drinking age. b. It is highly recommended that the verification of those who are of legal drinking age be performed by hired security. D. Fraternity and Sorority Life programs will review the educational program created in house by chapters that want to host events with alcohol. This will include review of safety precautions, risk management procedures, responsible party hosting, etc, by the Coordinators of Fraternity and Sorority Life. a. Chapters must designate responsible individual(s) as their chapter’s student- managed alcohol team to complete this training before a party with alcohol can be hosted. The student-managed alcohol team will serve as sober monitors at events with alcohol. b. The responsible individual(s) must be sober, alcohol free, and on-site at the party for the entire time. c. The names of those individual(s) must be included on the party registration form. For parties that are solely between two or more chapters (no non-member guests), each chapter shall provide sober monitors, who are only responsible for their own members. ARTICLE X - Transportation E. If the event is away from campus and requires transportation, the chapter is responsible for the coordination and payment of transportation. F. It is recommended that chapters contract the transportation with a third party. G. No university vehicles shall be used on any off campus events with alcohol. ARTICLE XI - Registration Process H. Registration paperwork will include the following: i. Chapter(s) hosting ii. Date & Time iii. Location iv. Description & purpose of party v. Expected number of guests vi. Risk management policy vii. A copy of the liquor license and liability insurance for the 3rd party vendor, if hired to serve alcohol at the event. viii. Point of contact ix. Any required contracts x. Invited parties xi. Any advertisement that may be used I. All parties under 100 people must be registered at least 5 business days before the date it is taking place. J. All parties over 100 people must be registered at least 10 business days before the date it is taking place. K. Registration review by the Coordinators of Fraternity and Sorority Life will be conducted in a timely manner. L. Any changes, updates, or revisions to the party registration requested by the University must be completed in a timely manner. Any changes not completed within 4 days of the event, will subject the party to cancellation. M. A follow up guest list must be submitted by Monday at 12 noon with the full names of all attendees and birthdates of all guests receiving wristbands. ARTICLE XII - Retention Policy of Guest Lists N. All guest lists must be turned into the Fraternity and Sorority Life Coordinators. Lists will be kept in a confidential, locked location. O. All digital and physical copies of the guest lists must be destroyed within 3 months after the party or upon the close of an investigation into the specific party the guest list was for, whichever is longer. ARTICLE XIII - Judicial P. The first infraction for a fraternity/sorority which does not formally register for a social event will receive a formal warning by the respective Council Judicial Board. In addition, the Dean of Students (or Dean of Students professional staff member designee) will independently review the incident, assess for a violation of the Party Registration policy, and determine the appropriate sanction(s) beyond those imposed by the respective Council Judicial Board. Q. The second infraction for a fraternity or sorority which does not formally register for a social event will require attendance at a meeting with the respective Council Judicial Board and the Dean of Students. In addition, the Dean of Students (or Dean of Students professional staff member designee) will independently review the incident, assess for a violation of the Party Registration policy, and determine the appropriate sanction(s) beyond those imposed by the respective Council Judicial Board. R. Any subsequent infraction for a fraternity or sorority which does not formally register a social event will result in immediate social suspension and additional sanctions may be imposed based upon an investigation. In addition, the Dean of Students (or Dean of Students professional staff member designee) will independently review the incident, assess for a violation of the Party Registration policy, and determine the appropriate sanction(s) beyond those imposed by the respective council Judicial Board. S. In order to determine the appropriate sanctions, the Dean of Students will follow the university investigation process found at the following site. http://studentlife.calpoly.edu/greek/info_resources/policies.asp T. The count of infractions is reset at the beginning of every academic year. ARTICLE XIV - Amnesty Policy U. Upon investigation, if it is determined that an individual did not have access to alcohol at an event and the chapter acted responsibly to ensure said individual received medical attention, the chapter will be treated as a sole entity and would fall under the amnesty policy afforded to individual students. ARTICLE XV - Good Faith V. It is recognized that this policy cannot address, in specific fashion, all possible social situations that may occur. When this policy is not specific on a particular point, the Interfraternity Council, the Panhellenic Council, and the United Sorority & Fraternity Council chapters and their members are expected to conduct their Events and themselves in the spirit of social responsibility expressed in this policy. W. Any chapter in violation of this policy’s intent will be subject to review by their respective council and/or the Office of Dean of Students Office. X. The Interfraternity Council, the Panhellenic Council, and the United Sorority & Fraternity Council strongly encourage all chapters to adhere to their own risk management policy. ARTICLE XVI - Interim Policy Review A. The first interim party registration policy will be reviewed starting the first week in March, 2014. B. If there needs to be revisions by either the Greek Councils or by campus Administration, they will need to be completed by the last day of spring quarter. C. A final agreement must be reached prior to the beginning of fall quarter 2014. Until a final agreement is reached, this draft policy will remain in effect. D. In addition to these guidelines, all chapters must adhere to all university and city laws and regulations. 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Sunday, June 9, 2024 10:50 PM To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Planning Commission, 6/12/2024, 1264 Foothill Fraternity Use Permit Attachments:Kathie Walker letter to Planning Commission.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Clerk, Please forward this email to the Planning Commission for the upcoming meeting on 6/12/2024 for the Conditional Use Permit (USE-0331-2023) for Lambda Chi Alpha at 1264 Foothill Blvd. I've also attached the Fraternity Report from 11/2023, which contains the current conditional use permits for every other fraternity in San Luis Obispo on pages 15 - 50, referenced in my letter. The table of contents lists each fraternity and the corresponding page numbers. I've also attached videos relevant to fraternity houses in our neighborhood, including one on Foothill Blvd, also referenced in my letter. Thank you, Kathie Walker To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Fraternity Report to SLO CDD Tway and Mezzapesa November 5 2023.pdf To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Fraternity dayges in the neighborhood.mp4 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Fraternity Parties 348 Hathway 4.26.2024 .mp4 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 June 6, 2024 Dear Planning Commissioners, I support Lambda Chi Alpha’s conditional use permit (CUP) for fraternity operations at 1264 & 1264 ½ Foothill Blvd and 1241, 1243, 1249 and 1251 Monte Vista Place. The conditions in a CUP are important to ensure that the neighbors of a fraternity house are not adversely impacted by fraternity operations. I feel there are some conditions missing from the CUP which are covered in more detail below. The parking suggested is good because much of our neighborhood is not a parking district and it is difficult for guests to find parking on the street. The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City development standards and regulations including section 17.86.130 A, which says, “This section is intended to promote the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by ensuring that dwelling units housing multiple persons who are members of a fraternity or sorority provide adequate support facilities for the intensity of associated use, and that such uses are operated in a manner that is not detrimental to the neighborhood in which they are located due to excessive noise, inadequate off-street parking, general property maintenance, and similar conditions…” The proposed CUP does not adequately address the noise problems associated with fraternity houses. I have been invested in the fraternity issue in our neighborhood for the last couple of years because our home has been increasingly surrounded by fraternity houses and it has negatively affected my family. I began researching the issue which led me to a understand the gravity of the situation and the City’s predicament. There are only seven fraternity CUPs but 18 fraternities in Cal Poly’s Interfraternity Council (IFC), and most fraternities have multiple house locations. The information I uncovered blew my mind, to be honest, because it’s gotten so far out of control. I spoke with Derek Johnson (previous city manager) about it, and he encouraged me to share my information with Timmi Tway who was newly hired as Community Development Director. So, I prepared a report, including detailed information about each of the fraternities and an outline of the overall situation, and provided it to Ms. Tway and John Mezzapesa during a meeting with them last year. I apologize for the length of my letter and appreciate your time to review it. The Cal Poly fraternity situation is a huge issue and is difficult to understand the scope without some context that is relevant to the proposed CUP. THE NATURE OF FRATERNITY HOUSES As fraternities have emerged in our neighborhood, I can confirm that movies like Animal House and Neighbors are not an exaggeration of the chaos that a fraternity house brings to a neighborhood. The Courts have repeatedly established that a fraternity house is a unique classification of housing that has an adverse effect on neighboring properties due to noise and other issues, therefore cities have specific zoning regulations associated with their placement in a community. There is a big difference between denser housing such as apartments or a boarding house and a fraternity house, and court rulings have consistently confirmed that fact. In Long Beach v. Sigma Alpha Epsilon, the court stated: “The facts of life dictate that there is a vast difference between a boarding house or lodging house and a fraternity house... college spirit contemplates frequent gatherings with attendant boisterous conduct on occasions. The rush parties, the dances, the rallies and other manifestations of the collegiate spirit are present in a fraternity house and frequently absent in a boarding house or an apartment.” City of Long Beach v. California Lambda Chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, 255 Cal.App.2d 789. While a fraternity house is allowed in R-3 and R-4 zones in the City, the CUP must have conditions to address and mitigate the known issues related to a fraternity house, so it is not detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of those living and working in the neighborhood. Noise pollution (defined as an unwanted or disturbing sound) has been linked to health problems. Noise also disturbs a good night of sleep and causes difficulty falling asleep and 2 awakening, which lead to sleep deprivation and several other negative health consequences such as depressed mood, decreased cognitive performance, and fatigue1. We have many unpermitted “satellite” fraternity houses around our home, and there is one fraternity with a CUP at the end of our street. We can hear fraternity parties from our home, including at the fraternities on Foothill Blvd. Our neighborhood feels like a downtown bar district on many weekends because of the fraternity houses nearby. My husband and I have raised our sons here and our neighborhood has completely changed, especially over the past several years, specifically because of the proliferation of fraternity houses nearby. We have known and enjoyed our college-student neighbors and do not expect a perfectly quiet neighborhood. In fact, we loved the vitality of the mix of residents who lived here. When our sons were young, we carved pumpkins on our porch with college-student neighbors during Halloween season. I also participated in the production of a video for Cal Poly that was shown during W.O.W. week, promoting the relationship between long-term residents and our college student neighbors. But we no longer recognize our neighborhood, and it has become a nightmare because of the fraternity houses. I cannot begin to describe the adverse effect the “fraternity situation” has had on my and my family’s life, because we are unable to rest or enjoy our property much of the time due to the noise from fraternity houses. Fraternity parties are completely different from standard college-student parties, and fraternity house operations are completely different than standard college-student housing situations. Last year, Theta Chi fraternity moved into the rental house across the street and immediately had a fraternity party in their backyard with 700 people. At the same time, Sigma Pi fraternity moved into the rental house next door and had non-stop fraternity activities, drinking games, loud music and parties late at night, people coming and going, slamming doors, yelling throughout the night, and vomiting from their side deck near our bedroom windows due to overconsumption of alcohol. Fraternities are nocturnal operations and many of their events are centered around alcohol consumption.2 We did everything possible to work with the fraternity next door by texting them instead of calling SLOPD and we heard every excuse you can imagine. When we went over to break up an enormous fraternity party after one of their guests vomited in our front yard, some of the fraternity tenants told us that we don’t belong in this neighborhood and should move. Afterward, we decided we would no longer text them and would call SLOPD for their parties. Soon after, they received a noise citation while my husband was at work (he sometimes works nightshift) and they began harassing and cyberstalking me. Although their lease was not renewed for this year, they still dox me online, post untrue things using my full name on social media, advertise open parties at our home address, trespass onto our property near our bedroom window and say my name, and other creepy things that are caught on our video surveillance. I am not blaming this sort of activity on all fraternities. However, there is an overall entitlement that we have repeatedly experienced by many of the fraternity members in our neighborhood, that they have the right to have crazy parties whenever and however they want, and if we don’t like it, we shouldn’t live here. The unique nature of a fraternity house makes it important to set out clear terms in the CUP, from the beginning, so the fraternity and the neighborhood know what to expect. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SORORITIES & FRATERNITIES Sororities are governed by the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) and the NPC prohibits alcohol in sorority houses and the use of Panhellenic funds for alcohol, which means that sororities cannot host parties with alcohol in 1 Citation: Noise Pollution, Southern Medical Journal. https://docs.wind-watch.org/goineshagler-noisepollution.html 2 After a Cal Poly SLO fraternity pledge, Carson Starkey, died from alcohol poisoning, the National Interfraternity Conference sent industry experts to Cal Poly to conduct an in-depth assessment of the school’s Greek system, according to university records. … The assessment, prepared by fraternity executives, college administrators and a social worker… said alcohol was “a, and perhaps THE, defining factor” of Greek life. (“Cal Poly Brings Back Freshman Pledging After Lobbying ”, Bloomberg News, October 14, 2013.) 3 their houses. They can host social events at third-party venues but mostly, sororities at Cal Poly attend fraternity parties at fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo. The fraternity houses near our home have raging parties that host different sororities on weekends throughout the academic year. Nearly every weekend that Cal Poly is in session, we see and hear large groups of females walking to and from fraternity houses in our neighborhood. Cal Poly posted a report online that lists the “sanctioned events” of every fraternity and sorority at Cal Poly during the academic year 2022-2023, including the location of each party/event held by each fraternity and sorority.3 Every sorority party event listed in the report is at the addresses of a fraternity house in San Luis Obispo, including satellite fraternity houses, or an event at a third-party venue. This is in line with the NPC policy that prohibits parties with alcohol at sorority houses. Since sorority houses don’t host large, alcohol-fueled parties, they do not have the same impact and repercussions on the neighborhood as fraternity houses. HOURS OF OPERATION After reviewing the conditions outlined in the CUP, I noticed there are some important conditions missing, such as hours of operation. The existing CUPs for other Cal Poly fraternities state that no meetings or gatherings will take place between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. This is a critical item, to ensure that noise from the fraternity doesn’t adversely impact the neighboring properties. I have attached the CUPs for every fraternity in San Luis Obispo, for your reference (Fraternity Report, pgs. 15- 50.) Of the seven CUPs for fraternities in the city, one fraternity (Sigma Nu) has two CUPs, so only six fraternities have use permits out of 18 fraternities in the IFC. Cal Poly does not provide on-campus housing for any of their fraternities and most fraternities have several houses at different addresses that operate as fraternity houses. Some CUPs for fraternities do not allow parties. For example, Sigma Nu’s CUP at 1304 Foothill, condition 11 prohibits parties except for two events per year for parents and alumni: “No hosted Greek events on the site shall be allowed (i.e. TG’s [themed gatherings], rush events, little sisters, etc.) One parents’ barbeque and one alumni barbecue may be held at the site each year. Not more than thirty-eight (38) persons may be present at either event, including fraternity members.” Condition 10 specifically prohibits the use of amplified sound at events. Condition 5 states, “No meetings or other gatherings involving persons other than fraternity members living on the site are allowed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m.” and condition 3 strictly limits all fraternity activity to the house only, “for residential use”. Sigma Nu’s CUP was approved 30 years ago, and the number of fraternities at Cal Poly has increased since then, which has had a greater impact and more strain on our neighborhood. Wit h this increase, there is a responsibility to ensure that the known issues of a fraternity house are thoroughly addressed and not diluted in the CUP. The current Applicant, Lambda Chi Alpha, had a CUP for an address at 1292 Foothill Blvd. The CUP stays with the property, which is now occupied by Sigma Nu. The conditions include (condition 7) “No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities involving persons other than the residents are allowed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m., except as provided by the Community Development Director.” The CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha’s current application should include the same language. NOISE IMPACTS NEAR A LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD In Attachment B, the Applicant states that the property is located “steps from the Cal Poly campus” but it is important to note that it is also steps from an R-1 & R-2 residential neighborhood with many long-term residents and others who are impacted by the fraternity. (See neighborhood map, below) 3 The AB 524 Report is mandated by Assembly Bill 524: The Campus Recognized Fraternity and Sorority Transparency Act, and is posted on Cal Poly’s Greek Life webpage, beginning 10/1/2023, and annually thereafter. The report for this academic year (2023-2024) will be posted on 10/1/2024. 4 Fraternity parties on Foothill Blvd can be heard from blocks away. Noise travels throughout the neighborhood and it is difficult to tell where it is coming from unless you walk to the party to find the exact location. Many times, I have thought a party was the next block over, and was surprised it was at a fraternity three blocks away on Foothill Blvd. There are so many examples, but I’ll describe a recent incident on Memorial Day weekend which illustrates how we are affected by fraternity parties on Foothill Blvd. On 5/25/2024, we could hear loud music and a lot of yelling at around 2 p.m. It continued to get louder over the course of an hour, and we found it was coming from a fraternity a few blocks away at 1237 Foothill. We called SLOPD and were told that the party had already been issued a noise citation and SLOPD would go back to the party location. Two hours later, the thumping music and screaming could still be heard from our home. We went over to see if it was the same party, and it was. There were police officers sitting in two SLOPD units parked on Kentucky Ave , facing toward Hathway. People were climbing over the fence from Hathway to reach the backyard of 1237 Foothill. One officer said the fraternity had already been issued two noise citations, but the fraternity refused to stop the party! The officer had called his sergeant to respond so they could figure out what to do. We endured hours of thumping music and screaming from the fraternity party three blocks away from our home. 5 It has become more common for a fraternity to continue their loud party even after they’ve been issued a citation for a noise violation. Sometimes the party increases in size and volume and SLOPD is called again. The day after the party described above, on 5/26/2024, there was another large fraternity party at 1841 Slack for Zeta Beta Tau. The SLOPD dispatch log shows someone called SLOPD at 1:50 p.m. and a noise citation was issued with 70 people noted, but the party didn’t stop and continued to grow. At 2:30 p.m. another call was made to SLOPD issued another citation and noted 100+ people. Someone else called SLOPD from Hays & Graves, a block away, to report a large party heard in the area. After Zeta Beta Tau ended the party on Slack, they had a loud party at another of their documented satellite fraternity houses on Albert and received another noise citation. One does not expect a standard party to consist of 50-100+ loud, intoxicated people with blaring music heard blocks away, day and night, even in an R-4 zone, but that describes a standard fraternity party. There are also constant drinking games, yelling, chanting and profanity throughout the weekend, increased car and foot and traffic, to and from the fraternity parties, and intoxicated people screaming as they pass by. There is no escape if you live nearby. The only way to have any order is to set out detailed conditions in the CUP, that address the hours of operation and noise impacts in a meaningful way, and to enforce the CUP. I have attached a 2-minute video with series of videos in the past few weeks including:  A short clip of the Theta Chi party at 1237 Foothill on 5/25/2024, taken from a block away in an R-1 zone.  The video that was posted by Theta Chi fraternity beforehand, advertising the party that took place at 1237 Foothill on Saturday 5/25/2024.  The video that was posted by a Zeta Beta Chi fraternity advertising a party that took place at 1841 Slack on Sunday 5/26/2024.  The video posted by a Phi Sigma Kappa fraternity advertising a party beforehand that took place at 348 Hathway on 5/18/2024.  Video taken of the party at 348 Hathway on 5/18/2024. If the attachment doesn’t work here’s a link: https://vimeo.com/955676812?share=copy We have dozens of videos and, unfortunately, have become increasingly frustrated over the past two years due to lack of action by the City. I’ve attached video with some snippets from various fraternity parties for one fraternity house so you can get an idea of the noise impact from a fraternity house. Link: https://vimeo.com/955760836?share=copy People who live in our neighborhood can’t get away from the constant noise and disruptions that are specifically from fraternity houses in our neighborhood unless we leave our home. And when a party is at night and keeps us awake, we must get out of bed, get dressed, and go find the party to get an address to call SLOPD. There needs to be conditions added to Lambda Chi Alpha’s CUP to better define the fraternity operation, so everything is clear from the beginning, for the benefit of the fraternity and the impacted neighborhood. FOUR STRIKES The CUP should include a condition that outlines a threshold for noise violations, which triggers a review of the CUP. For example, “If four noise citations are issued to the property within 12 months - including a cumulative total of all addresses within the same parcel - the conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may add, delete or modify the conditions of approval or may revoke the use permit.” Condition 3 of the proposed CUP says the CUP “shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the City receives substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, Fire Department or Police Department employee, which contains information and/or evidence supporting a conclusion that a violation of this Conditional Use Permit, or of City Ordinances, regulations, or Police Department resources (e.g., calls for service) applicable to the fraternity use has occurred.” 6 1. One complaint should satisfy this condition, instead of multiple complaints, so that word should be changed from “complaints” to “complaint” in condition 3. 2. It is highly unlikely that the city will write a complaint. The city has not been proactive whatsoever about regulating fraternity operations for at least a decade, when it was documented that there were illegal fraternity houses on Hathway, after a roof collapsed during St. Fratty’s Day. In my report given to Ms. Tway and Mr. Mezzapesa, I pointed out the ongoing violations of the existing CUPs at fraternity houses, but the city did not take any action against the CUPs. For example, Alpha Gamma Rho has been suspended by Cal Poly for two years and is not in good standing, which is automatic grounds for revoking their CUP, but when last I heard, their CUP was not revoked. 3. Residents are reluctant to come forward to file a written complaint and risk being targeted by the fraternity. Several of my affected neighbors have expressed fear about that. Some have contacted Mr. Mezzapesa but will not file a written complaint because they are afraid of retaliation. 4. My husband and I finally made a written complaint against a fraternity CUP in early February based on ongoing violations, including six noise citations / two unruly gatherings in 10 months. No action has been taken by the city. It’s been over four months since the complaint was filed, and the fraternity has received more noise complaints and has been issued at least four more noise citations since then. It makes more sense to have a certain number of strikes (citations) outlined in the conditions, and when that is surpassed, the CUP shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. A WRITTEN COMPLAINT REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME If a substantiated written complaint is received, the CUP should set forth a timeline for referral to the Planning Commission, for example, within 30 days. LIVE BANDS, DJs, and AMPLIFIED MUSIC Chapter 9.3 of the SLOMC defines the prohibition of unruly gatherings (URG). Unpermitted live bands, DJs and amplified music fall under the URG definition (Section 9.13.020 E) yet are extremely common at a fraternity house. Unfortunately, SLOPD does not often cite live bands, amplified music, and/or DJs as unruly gatherings. Also, Community Development enforces the terms of the CUP and SLOPD does not. The CUP should include a condition that prohibits unpermitted live bands, DJs and amplified music. Although it is already recognized in the SLOMC, other provisions of the SLOMC are listed as conditions of the CUP, and are also covered by the SLOMC, such as the loss of the CUP if the fraternity loses its standing which is specified under SLOMC (17.86.130 A.3). Listing unpermitted bands, etc. as a condition will underscore the importance especially as it pertains to a fraternity house, as this law is commonly violated. If they don’t plan to have unpermitted live bands, DJs and amplified music, then they should not object to having this condition in their CUP. CUMULATIVE CITATIONS FOR FRATERNITY OPERATIONS ON SAME PARCEL Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 052-071-030 includes all the addresses in this application for the CUP. If a noise citation is issued to the fraternity, regardless of whether it is for any one of the listed six addresses on the parcel, the citation should accumulate against the APN, not each separate address. The fine for a noise citation increases for each citation written as follows: 1st noise citation, $350, second noise citation, $700, third and subsequent noise citation, $1,000. After nine months without a citation, the fine reverts to $350. When there are multiple addresses on the same parcel, each address is treated separately, so their first citation is $350 for each address. This is because there is a presumption that unrelated groups of people reside at each separate addresses, so it would not be fair to hold one group responsible for the other group’s behavior. However, Lambda Chi Alpha is applying for a CUP as a single entity / fraternity to occupy all addresses on the parcel. Therefore, the fraternity should be held responsible for noise citations cumulatively for the same parcel. 7 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Most CUPs for other fraternities include a “neighborhood relations plan” with annual training. At the very least, the fraternity should be made aware of the terms of their CUP every Fall so they understand their responsibilities. NOISE HISTORY OF LAMBDA CHI ALPHA AT THIS LOCATION Since Lambda Chi Alpha has been operating at 1264 Foothill, there have been numerous calls to SLOPD for noisy parties. The fraternity was issued a noise citation at 3:45 a.m. on St. Fratty’s Day, 3/16/2024. Prior to St. Fratty’s Day, in anticipation of the potential for early morning disruptions in the neighborhood, city representatives met with Greek life leaders at Cal Poly and specifically warned them about their participation in St. Fratty’s Day. SLOPD also did not allow fraternities to register parties on 3/16/2024, St. Fratty’s Day. Still, Lambda Chi Alpha received two noise citations at this property early that morning. One week earlier, on 3/10/2023, the fraternity held an event called “SLO Jam” with multiple unpermitted live bands on the property, which is against the law in all residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. The fraternity originally planned to hold the event at a satellite house on Albert Drive, but code enforcement told them and the property owner that live bands are not allowed in any residential neighborhood, and they would receive a code violation if they held the event. Instead of canceling the event, the fraternity moved it to 1264 Foothill and held the event anyway with several unpermitted live bands. Less than five months earlier, on 10/27/2023 at around 10 p.m. my husband and I witnessed hundreds of people in Halloween costumes streaming out of the house and yard at 1264 Foothill Blvd. SLOPD had blocked off a lane of traffic on Foothill Blvd to clear out an out-of-control party at the fraternity house and there were many officers, including bicycle officers, on scene, escorting people off of the property. On 7/14/2023 at 12:30 a.m. the property at 1264 Foothill was cited for a noise violation, and a month earlier, on 6/17/2023 at 11:23 p.m., they received another noise violation. The property at 1241 Monte Vista was issued a noise violation on 2/3/2023 at 10:11 p.m. and had multiple other noise complaints since Fall 2022. 1243 Monte Vista received a citation on 12/2/2023. 1249 Monte Vista had a report filed by SLOPD for a noisy party on 11/15/2022. 1251 Monte Vista had noise violations on 12/3/2022, 12/8/2023, and another on 3/16/2024 at 3:30 a.m., St. Fratty’s Day. This is not a quiet property. The neighbors are negatively impacted by the noise and other fraternity activity. To put this in perspective, most addresses in our neighborhood don’t have a single noise violation but most of the fraternity houses have had multiple noise violations. Please don’t normalize the disruption of a fraternity house just because it’s near campus, because it’s also near our lower-density residential neighborhood. The CUP should address and mitigate the impacts of the fraternity operation, consistent with the CUPs for other Cal Poly fraternities, to ensure that the fraternity members understand the responsibilities toward their neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration and time. Best Regards, Kathie Walker 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Monday, June 10, 2024 9:14 AM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Planning Commission, 6/12/2024, 1264 Foothill Fraternity Use Permit Hi Kathie, 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: kathie walker < > Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2024 10:50 PM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: Planning Commission, 6/12/2024, 1264 Foothill Fraternity Use Permit This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Clerk, Please forward this email to the Planning Commission for the upcoming meeting on 6/12/2024 for the Conditional Use Permit (USE-0331-2023) for Lambda Chi Alpha at 1264 Foothill Blvd. I've also attached the Fraternity Report from 11/2023, which contains the current conditional use permits for every other fraternity in San Luis Obispo on pages 15 - 50, referenced in my letter. The table of contents lists each fraternity and the corresponding page numbers. I've also attached videos relevant to fraternity houses in our neighborhood, including one on Foothill Blvd, also referenced in my letter. Thank you, Kathie Walker 2 Fraternity Report to SLO CDD Tway and Mezzapesa November 5 2023.pdf Fraternity dayges in the neighborhood.mp4 Fraternity Parties 348 Hathway 4.26.2024 .mp4 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Monday, June 10, 2024 10:43 PM To:Mila Vujovich-LaBarre Cc:Jan Marx; Marx, Jan; E-mail Council Website; Jeff Armstrong; Tracy L. Watson; Wallace, Christine; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith Subject:Re: Fw: Video - Warning graphic This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Thank you, Mila. For context, those who don't know, this was about a week ago but I have been targeted by Cal Poly fraternity members for over a year. They are angry at my efforts to move illegal fraternity houses out of the lower density (R-1 & R-2) residential neighborhood and for those in legally permitted zones (R-3 & R-4) to get conditional use permits as required by the city. I've been cyberstalked, had accounts opened using my email and phone number on porn sites, received emails claiming I have an sexually transmitted disease, had ads posted on Craigslist to come to my home for free stuff, had members of various religious groups visit my home saying I'd made appointments, had hundreds of calls and texts from car dealerships returning my call to buy a car, and been doxed online with my full name and untrue statements about me on Cal Poly subreddit, had my home address posted on YikYak saying there was an early-morning party there on St. Frattys Day. I have had people related to a fraternity trespass onto my property and come right up to my bedroom window and say my name which was caught on video surveillance. I am waiting for the day that a rock is smashed through my window or worse. On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 1:35 PM Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < wrote: Dear All - My summer days are here! Hooray! I take my commitments very seriously in the classroom as well as in the community. As a representative for the SCLC, I am in contact with diverse community members. I do feel that the SCLC makes an effort to bring solutions to problems. Please watch this video and let me know your thoughts on how to eliminate this type of behavior in the future. My heart goes out to this community member, Kathie Walker, and to others who are trying to find ways to cope with misbehavior. Neighborhood residents should feel safe and supported. Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. Sincerely, Mila Vujovich-La Barre From: kathie walker < > Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2024 8:02 PM 2 To: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Subject: Video Thank you for reaching out. The video I sent was missing an arrow pointing to the vandalized windshield at the end of the video. I corrected it and am attaching the updated video to this email for you to send. Thank you, also for your advice. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 6.2.2024 Kathie Walker.mp4 1 From:Stewart, Erica A Sent:Wednesday, June 12, 2024 12:13 AM To:kathie walker Cc:Scott, Rick; McDonald, Whitney; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre Subject:Re: Fw: Video - Warning graphic Dear Kathie, I'm so sorry you have been targeted in these ways. I hope that the SLOPD will be able to help. Best wishes, Erica Erica A. Stewart pronouns she/her/hers Mayor To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.City of San Luis Obispo Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E estewart@slocity.org T 805.783.7838 C 805.540.1154 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 10:42 PM To: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Cc: Jan Marx < ; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Jeff Armstrong <presidentsoffice@calpoly.edu>; Tracy L. Watson <twatson@calpoly.edu>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; ; Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < Subject: Re: Fw: Video - Warning graphic This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Thank you, Mila. For context, those who don't know, this was about a week ago but I have been targeted by Cal Poly fraternity members for over a year. They are angry at my efforts to move illegal fraternity houses out of the lower density (R-1 & R-2) residential neighborhood and for those in legally permitted zones (R-3 & R-4) to get conditional use permits as required by the city. I've been cyberstalked, had accounts opened using my email and phone number on porn sites, received emails claiming I have an sexually transmitted disease, had ads posted on Craigslist to come to my home for free stuff, had members of various religious groups visit my home saying I'd made appointments, had hundreds of calls and texts from car dealerships returning my call to buy a car, and been doxed online with my full name and untrue statements about me on Cal Poly subreddit, had my home address 2 posted on YikYak saying there was an early-morning party there on St. Frattys Day. I have had people related to a fraternity trespass onto my property and come right up to my bedroom window and say my name which was caught on video surveillance. I am waiting for the day that a rock is smashed through my window or worse. On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 1:35 PM Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < wrote: Dear All - My summer days are here! Hooray! I take my commitments very seriously in the classroom as well as in the community. As a representative for the SCLC, I am in contact with diverse community members. I do feel that the SCLC makes an effort to bring solutions to problems. Please watch this video and let me know your thoughts on how to eliminate this type of behavior in the future. My heart goes out to this community member, Kathie Walker, and to others who are trying to find ways to cope with misbehavior. Neighborhood residents should feel safe and supported. Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. Sincerely, Mila Vujovich-La Barre From: kathie walker < > Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2024 8:02 PM To: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Subject: Video Thank you for reaching out. The video I sent was missing an arrow pointing to the vandalized windshield at the end of the video. I corrected it and am attaching the updated video to this email for you to send. Thank you, also for your advice. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 6.2.2024 Kathie Walker.mp4 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 12:51 PM To:Scott, Rick Subject:Re: cc Walker (Harassment Video further comment) Thank you, Rick. Your email means a lot. On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:40 PM Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> wrote: BCC CC: Kathie, Thank you for providing additional information to better frame the issue for those outside the police department. Echoing the sentiment from my Cal Poly colleagues “Goes without saying that no one should be called those things or treated that way.” These retaliatory incidents are sad to hear and no doubt degrade the quality of life in your neighborhood. Personal attacks far outweigh noise complaints, and the department stands ready to assist and hold those responsible criminally accountable should information and investigation yield viable suspects. Please continue to report any incidents that single you out, your family, and/or address and we’ll continue to do our best to stop this aggressive behavior. Thank you, Rick Scott Police Chief Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E rscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7256 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, 2 dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 10:29 AM To: kathie walker < > Cc: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: cc Walker (Harassment Video further comment) Kathie Walker, Your further communication on this topic has been supplied directly to City Council and by copy on this note are being provided to Police Chief Scott and Community Development Director Timmi Tway. 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: kathie walker < > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 10:43 PM To: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Cc: Jan Marx < ; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Jeff Armstrong <presidentsoffice@calpoly.edu>; Tracy L. Watson <twatson@calpoly.edu>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < Subject: Re: Fw: Video - Warning graphic 3 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Thank you, Mila. For context, those who don't know, this was about a week ago but I have been targeted by Cal Poly fraternity members for over a year. They are angry at my efforts to move illegal fraternity houses out of the lower density (R-1 & R-2) residential neighborhood and for those in legally permitted zones (R-3 & R-4) to get conditional use permits as required by the city. I've been cyberstalked, had accounts opened using my email and phone number on porn sites, received emails claiming I have an sexually transmitted disease, had ads posted on Craigslist to come to my home for free stuff, had members of various religious groups visit my home saying I'd made appointments, had hundreds of calls and texts from car dealerships returning my call to buy a car, and been doxed online with my full name and untrue statements about me on Cal Poly subreddit, had my home address posted on YikYak saying there was an early-morning party there on St. Frattys Day. I have had people related to a fraternity trespass onto my property and come right up to my bedroom window and say my name which was caught on video surveillance. I am waiting for the day that a rock is smashed through my window or worse. On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 1:35 PM Mila Vujovich-LaBarre <milavu@hotmail.com> wrote: Dear All - My summer days are here! Hooray! I take my commitments very seriously in the classroom as well as in the community. As a representative for the SCLC, I am in contact with diverse community members. I do feel that the SCLC makes an effort to bring solutions to problems. Please watch this video and let me know your thoughts on how to eliminate this type of behavior in the future. My heart goes out to this community member, Kathie Walker, and to others who are trying to find ways to cope with misbehavior. Neighborhood residents should feel safe and supported. Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. 4 Sincerely, Mila Vujovich-La Barre From: kathie walker < > Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2024 8:02 PM To: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Subject: Video Thank you for reaching out. The video I sent was missing an arrow pointing to the vandalized windshield at the end of the video. I corrected it and am attaching the updated video to this email for you to send. Thank you, also for your advice. 6.2.2024 Kathie Walker.mp4 1 From:CityClerk Sent:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 10:29 AM To:kathie walker Cc:Scott, Rick; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:cc Walker (Harassment Video further comment) Kathie Walker, Your further communication on this topic has been supplied directly to City Council and by copy on this note are being provided to Police Chief Scott and Community Development Director Timmi Tway. 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: kathie walker < > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 10:43 PM To: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre <milavu@hotmail.com> Cc: Jan Marx < ; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Jeff Armstrong <presidentsoffice@calpoly.edu>; Tracy L. Watson <twatson@calpoly.edu>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < Subject: Re: Fw: Video - Warning graphic This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Thank you, Mila. For context, those who don't know, this was about a week ago but I have been targeted by Cal Poly fraternity members for over a year. They are angry at my efforts to move illegal fraternity houses out of the lower density (R-1 & R-2) residential neighborhood and for those in legally permitted zones (R-3 & R-4) to get conditional use permits as required by the city. I've been cyberstalked, had accounts opened using my email and phone number on porn sites, received emails claiming I have an sexually transmitted disease, had ads posted on Craigslist to come to my home for free stuff, had members of various religious groups visit my home saying I'd made appointments, had hundreds of calls and texts from car dealerships returning my call to buy a car, and been doxed online with my full name and untrue statements about me on Cal Poly subreddit, had my home address 2 posted on YikYak saying there was an early-morning party there on St. Frattys Day. I have had people related to a fraternity trespass onto my property and come right up to my bedroom window and say my name which was caught on video surveillance. I am waiting for the day that a rock is smashed through my window or worse. On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 1:35 PM Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < wrote: Dear All - My summer days are here! Hooray! I take my commitments very seriously in the classroom as well as in the community. As a representative for the SCLC, I am in contact with diverse community members. I do feel that the SCLC makes an effort to bring solutions to problems. Please watch this video and let me know your thoughts on how to eliminate this type of behavior in the future. My heart goes out to this community member, Kathie Walker, and to others who are trying to find ways to cope with misbehavior. Neighborhood residents should feel safe and supported. Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. Sincerely, Mila Vujovich-La Barre From: kathie walker < > Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2024 8:02 PM To: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Subject: Video Thank you for reaching out. The video I sent was missing an arrow pointing to the vandalized windshield at the end of the video. I corrected it and am attaching the updated video to this email for you to send. Thank you, also for your advice. 6.2.2024 Kathie Walker.mp4 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 7:48 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Fw: Video - Warning graphic Thank you, Michelle. On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 7:45 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi again Kathie, I am so sorry that things like this are happening to you. I saw that Chief Scott already wrote back to you and encouraged you to keep reporting these instances…especially when you can identify the perpetrators. I know that code enforcement is working on a lot of neighborhood issues along with PD. They will keep working together, and with the university with these very complicated situations. Thank you and be safe. Michelle From: kathie walker < > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 10:43 PM To: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Cc: Jan Marx < ; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Jeff Armstrong <presidentsoffice@calpoly.edu>; Tracy L. Watson <twatson@calpoly.edu>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < Subject: Re: Fw: Video - Warning graphic This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Thank you, Mila. For context, those who don't know, this was about a week ago but I have been targeted by Cal Poly fraternity members for over a year. They are angry at my efforts to move illegal fraternity houses out of the lower density (R-1 & R-2) residential neighborhood and for those in legally permitted zones (R-3 & R-4) to get conditional use 2 permits as required by the city. I've been cyberstalked, had accounts opened using my email and phone number on porn sites, received emails claiming I have an sexually transmitted disease, had ads posted on Craigslist to come to my home for free stuff, had members of various religious groups visit my home saying I'd made appointments, had hundreds of calls and texts from car dealerships returning my call to buy a car, and been doxed online with my full name and untrue statements about me on Cal Poly subreddit, had my home address posted on YikYak saying there was an early-morning party there on St. Frattys Day. I have had people related to a fraternity trespass onto my property and come right up to my bedroom window and say my name which was caught on video surveillance. I am waiting for the day that a rock is smashed through my window or worse. On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 1:35 PM Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < wrote: Dear All - My summer days are here! Hooray! I take my commitments very seriously in the classroom as well as in the community. As a representative for the SCLC, I am in contact with diverse community members. I do feel that the SCLC makes an effort to bring solutions to problems. Please watch this video and let me know your thoughts on how to eliminate this type of behavior in the future. My heart goes out to this community member, Kathie Walker, and to others who are trying to find ways to cope with misbehavior. Neighborhood residents should feel safe and supported. Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. Sincerely, Mila Vujovich-La Barre 3 From: kathie walker < > Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2024 8:02 PM To: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Subject: Video Thank you for reaching out. The video I sent was missing an arrow pointing to the vandalized windshield at the end of the video. I corrected it and am attaching the updated video to this email for you to send. Thank you, also for your advice. 6.2.2024 Kathie Walker.mp4 1 From:Scott, Rick Sent:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 12:41 PM To:kathie walker Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); CityClerk Subject:RE: cc Walker (Harassment Video further comment) BCC CC: Kathie, Thank you for providing additional information to better frame the issue for those outside the police department. Echoing the sentiment from my Cal Poly colleagues “Goes without saying that no one should be called those things or treated that way.” These retaliatory incidents are sad to hear and no doubt degrade the quality of life in your neighborhood. Personal attacks far outweigh noise complaints, and the department stands ready to assist and hold those responsible criminally accountable should information and investigation yield viable suspects. Please continue to report any incidents that single you out, your family, and/or address and we’ll continue to do our best to stop this aggressive behavior. Thank you, Rick Scott Police Chief Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E rscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7256 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 10:29 AM To: kathie walker < > Cc: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: cc Walker (Harassment Video further comment) Kathie Walker, Your further communication on this topic has been supplied directly to City Council and by copy on this note are being provided to Police Chief Scott and Community Development Director Timmi Tway. 2 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: kathie walker < > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 10:43 PM To: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Cc: Jan Marx < ; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Jeff Armstrong <presidentsoffice@calpoly.edu>; Tracy L. Watson <twatson@calpoly.edu>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < Subject: Re: Fw: Video - Warning graphic This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Thank you, Mila. For context, those who don't know, this was about a week ago but I have been targeted by Cal Poly fraternity members for over a year. They are angry at my efforts to move illegal fraternity houses out of the lower density (R-1 & R-2) residential neighborhood and for those in legally permitted zones (R-3 & R-4) to get conditional use permits as required by the city. I've been cyberstalked, had accounts opened using my email and phone number on porn sites, received emails claiming I have an sexually transmitted disease, had ads posted on Craigslist to come to my home for free stuff, had members of various religious groups visit my home saying I'd made appointments, had hundreds of calls and texts from car dealerships returning my call to buy a car, and been doxed online with my full name and untrue statements about me on Cal Poly subreddit, had my home address posted on YikYak saying there was an early-morning party there on St. Frattys Day. I have had people related to a fraternity trespass onto my property and come right up to my bedroom window and say my name which was caught on video surveillance. I am waiting for the day that a rock is smashed through my window or worse. On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 1:35 PM Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < wrote: Dear All - My summer days are here! Hooray! I take my commitments very seriously in the classroom as well as in the community. As a representative for the SCLC, I am in contact with diverse community members. I do feel that the SCLC makes an effort to bring solutions to problems. Please watch this video and let me know your thoughts on how to eliminate this type of behavior 3 in the future. My heart goes out to this community member, Kathie Walker, and to others who are trying to find ways to cope with misbehavior. Neighborhood residents should feel safe and supported. Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. Sincerely, Mila Vujovich-La Barre From: kathie walker < > Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2024 8:02 PM To: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Subject: Video Thank you for reaching out. The video I sent was missing an arrow pointing to the vandalized windshield at the end of the video. I corrected it and am attaching the updated video to this email for you to send. Thank you, also for your advice. 6.2.2024 Kathie Walker.mp4 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 7:45 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Fw: Video - Warning graphic Hi again Kathie, I am so sorry that things like this are happening to you. I saw that Chief Scott already wrote back to you and encouraged you to keep reporting these instances…especially when you can identify the perpetrators. I know that code enforcement is working on a lot of neighborhood issues along with PD. They will keep working together, and with the university with these very complicated situations. Thank you and be safe. Michelle From: kathie walker < > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 10:43 PM To: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre <milavu@hotmail.com> Cc: Jan Marx < ; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Jeff Armstrong <presidentsoffice@calpoly.edu>; Tracy L. Watson <twatson@calpoly.edu>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < Subject: Re: Fw: Video - Warning graphic This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Thank you, Mila. For context, those who don't know, this was about a week ago but I have been targeted by Cal Poly fraternity members for over a year. They are angry at my efforts to move illegal fraternity houses out of the lower density (R-1 & R-2) residential neighborhood and for those in legally permitted zones (R-3 & R-4) to get conditional use permits as required by the city. I've been cyberstalked, had accounts opened using my email and phone number on porn sites, received emails claiming I have an sexually transmitted disease, had ads posted on Craigslist to come to my home for free stuff, had members of various religious groups visit my home saying I'd made appointments, had hundreds of calls and texts from car dealerships returning my call to buy a car, and been doxed online with my full name and untrue statements about me on Cal Poly subreddit, had my home address posted on YikYak saying there was an early-morning party there on St. Frattys Day. I have had people related to a fraternity trespass onto my property and come right up to my bedroom window and say my name which was caught on video surveillance. I am waiting for the day that a rock is smashed through my window or worse. On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 1:35 PM Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < wrote: Dear All - My summer days are here! Hooray! I take my commitments very seriously in the classroom as well as in the community. As a representative for the SCLC, I am in contact with diverse community members. 2 I do feel that the SCLC makes an effort to bring solutions to problems. Please watch this video and let me know your thoughts on how to eliminate this type of behavior in the future. My heart goes out to this community member, Kathie Walker, and to others who are trying to find ways to cope with misbehavior. Neighborhood residents should feel safe and supported. Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. Sincerely, Mila Vujovich-La Barre From: kathie walker < > Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2024 8:02 PM To: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Subject: Video Thank you for reaching out. The video I sent was missing an arrow pointing to the vandalized windshield at the end of the video. I corrected it and am attaching the updated video to this email for you to send. Thank you, also for your advice. 6.2.2024 Kathie Walker.mp4 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Thursday, June 13, 2024 10:20 AM To:Kersten, Markie Subject:Clarification of your statements at Planning Commission This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Markie, Last night you told me that it is not legal to limit the occupancy of a fraternity, under their conditional use permit, during certain hours based on caselaw. Would you please cite those cases you were speaking of? For reference, this is the wording of the fraternity CUP that we proposed, and that is present in other fraternity CUPs in San Luis Obispo, that you said is not legal: This is the condition they decided on, in lieu of the one proposed, which has a different meaning and less mitigation: "The fraternity will comply with Table 1 (Exterior Noise Limits) of section 9.12.060 between extended hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m., except as approved in writing as a special event by the Community Development Director." Please forward the cases you referred to last night. Thanks so much. -Kathie Walker 1 From:Kersten, Markie Sent:Thursday, June 13, 2024 5:29 PM To: Subject:RE: Clarification of your statements at Planning Commission Hi Kathie, Thank you for the questions and the opportunity to correct some apparent misunderstandings you took away from my statements and advice to my client, the Planning Commission, last night. I am bcc’ing my client here so that we all are working from the same information. I note that I cannot provide legal advice to members of the public and the clarifying information provided here is not intended as legal advice, but rather public information to aid in better understanding the scope and legal limitations of the City’s actions. First, I did not tell you or anyone else last night that it was “not legal to limit the occupancy of a fraternity” house pursuant to a conditional use permit. Indeed, state building and local zoning codes can and do limit building occupancy, and the conditional use permit includes conditions limiting the regular residential occupancy to 24 residents and limits the intermittent occupancy for routine meetings or gatherings to 48 people, unless the Community Development Department approves a larger special event. For greater clarity, the Department’s review and approval of any such larger event would necessarily occur within and be subject to the limitations and requirements of otherwise applicable City codes, regulations, and permit application/procedural requirements, as reflected in Council adopted codes and policies. What I did tell you is that there are both Municipal Code limitations and constitutional concerns with conditions that limit the type of people one can have in their home at any given time (e.g., residents v. non-residents). People in private residences are allowed to gather and meet with visitors and guests in their private homes without government interference in their associational choices, so long as the conduct and number of residents and/or guests conforms to otherwise applicable law. The limiting language in the City Code (Section 17.110.050) derives from and reflects these constitutional limitations on governmental action and provides express protection against misapplication of City codes in a manner that could raise constitutional concerns. Notwithstanding the imprecise language of past CUPs you note below, the City has always interpreted and applied CUP language, and exercised its code and condition enforcement authority, in a manner consistent with constitutional limitations and requirements. Where I review past language and identify areas for improvement to more precisely reflect legally compliant conditions and enhance clarity in enforcement, I will always recommend such clarifications to my client. That context was and will continue to be the basis for my advice to my client. Prior to the recess, the Planning Commission was reviewing draft language that stated in part there shall be no “meetings” “or other types of similar activities” involving persons other than residents between certain hours. It has never been the recommendation of the City Attorney’s Office to our City client that the City should adopt or impose regulations or conditions governing who one can gather, meet with, or invite into their private residence at any given time of the day, because as stated above, regulations of a person’s private relationships and associations within one’s private home is generally unconstitutional; that is why Section 17.110.050 of our Municipal Code specifically limits conditions of this nature. Further, it is important to clarify that while I understand this was an important condition to you and other members of the public, the direction I received from my client before heading into recess was to craft a condition that limited noise during specified hours, which the adopted condition accomplishes. The Commission did not direct me to craft language to limit what type of person one can have in their residence based on the guest’s associational status. Indeed, I informed the Planning Commission on the record before heading into recess that I would be revising the draft condition language to resolve my concerns about freedom of association and would focus the condition on the regulation of noise. I did not receive any objection from the Planning Commission. In terms of pointing you to legal authority for my advice, that would be the United States and California Constitutions, which protect against government intrusion into private residences, relationship, and private associational activities, except to the extent that conduct violates generally applicable laws, while permitting reasonable local regulation of land use and conduct in residential areas. 2 I am bcc’ing this response to your message to the Planning Director and the Planning Commission and will provide any additional legal clarifications to my client if so requested. Thank you, Markie Markie Kersten pronouns she/her/hers Assistant City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E mkersten@slocity.org T 805.781.7141 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 10:20 AM To: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Subject: Clarification of your statements at Planning Commission This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Markie, Last night you told me that it is not legal to limit the occupancy of a fraternity, under their conditional use permit, during certain hours based on caselaw. Would you please cite those cases you were speaking of? For reference, this is the wording of the fraternity CUP that we proposed, and that is present in other fraternity CUPs in San Luis Obispo, that you said is not legal: This is the condition they decided on, in lieu of the one proposed, which has a different meaning and less mitigation: 3 "The fraternity will comply with Table 1 (Exterior Noise Limits) of section 9.12.060 between extended hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m., except as approved in writing as a special event by the Community Development Director." Please forward the cases you referred to last night. Thanks so much. -Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Thursday, June 13, 2024 8:55 AM To:CityClerk Subject:Records Request (CPRA) Attachments:CPRA Records Request for special event permits.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. I've attached a records request under the California Public Records Act. Please provide the records electronically. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Thursday, June 13, 2024 9:06 AM To:CityClerk Subject:Re: Records Request (CPRA) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. To clarity, I am asking for ALL special event permits issued by the city of San Luis Obispo, to include those located on private property including those issued in residential neighborhoods (zones R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4) since 1/1/2022. And also the terms and conditions of each of the special event permits such as hours of operation, noise, etc. Please include all information applicable to each special event permit issued. Thank you, Kathie Walker On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 8:54 AM kathie walker < > wrote: I've attached a records request under the California Public Records Act. Please provide the records electronically. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Thursday, June 13, 2024 9:13 AM To:Kathie Walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:Records Request Acknowledgement - PRR24179 Walker - Special event permits Attachments:PRR24179 Walker - Special event permits.pdf Kathie Walker, The City is in receipt of your public records request as of June 13, 2024, and will begin searching for responsive documents. If you have any questions in the meantime, feel free to contact me. Thank you. 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 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Thursday, June 13, 2024 9:20 AM To:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Subject:Re: Records Request Acknowledgement - PRR24179 Walker - Special event permits This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Andrea, Would you make sure the clarification is included in my form so there is no confusion? I am asking for ALL event permits, including those located on private property. On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:13 AM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote: Kathie Walker, The City is in receipt of your public records request as of June 13, 2024, and will begin searching for responsive documents. If you have any questions in the meantime, feel free to contact me. Thank you. 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 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Thursday, June 13, 2024 9:23 AM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Records Request Acknowledgement - PRR24179 Walker - Special event permits Hi Kathie, Yes, the clarification you provided in your second email was included in my email to staff when searching for responsive records. Thank you! 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: kathie walker < > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 9:20 AM To: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Records Request Acknowledgement - PRR24179 Walker - Special event permits This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Andrea, Would you make sure the clarification is included in my form so there is no confusion? I am asking for ALL event permits, including those located on private property. On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:13 AM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote: Kathie Walker, The City is in receipt of your public records request as of June 13, 2024, and will begin searching for responsive documents. If you have any questions in the meantime, feel free to contact me. Thank you. 2 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 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Friday, June 14, 2024 7:40 PM To:Kersten, Markie Subject:Re: Clarification of your statements at Planning Commission Markie, I appreciate your clarification. During our conversation, I heard you refer to "caselaw" related to the outdated wording in the CUP, and that’s the reason I asked for a reference. Thank you for pointing me to the SLOMC 17.110.050. My frustration was with the wording of condition fourteen and I still believe it is flawed. While the director has the authority to grant a special event permit according to SLOMC 17.86.260, the City Code requires that the proposed activities or events approved by a special event permit have “no potential to detrimentally affect those working and living in the vicinity.” It’s not a stretch to imagine that a fraternity party with over 48 people has the potential to adversely affect those nearby, especially after 10:00 p.m. If you had a chance to watch the video attached to my correspondence, the citation of the party indicates there were 35 people at that event and it could be heard from my home, a block away. The planning commissioners noted that this CUP will likely be used as a template for future fraternity CUPs. That's the reason it is important that the conditions be adequate to mitigate the impact of the fraternity house on the neighborhood. Thank you, again, for taking the time to respond to my previous email. Have a great weekend. -Kathie On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 5:29 PM Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, Thank you for the questions and the opportunity to correct some apparent misunderstandings you took away from my statements and advice to my client, the Planning Commission, last night. I am bcc’ing my client here so that we all are working from the same information. I note that I cannot provide legal advice to members of the public and the clarifying information provided here is not intended as legal advice, but rather public information to aid in better understanding the scope and legal limitations of the City’s actions. First, I did not tell you or anyone else last night that it was “not legal to limit the occupancy of a fraternity” house pursuant to a conditional use permit. Indeed, state building and local zoning codes can and do limit building occupancy, and the conditional use permit includes conditions limiting the regular residential occupancy to 24 residents and limits the intermittent occupancy for routine meetings or gatherings to 48 people, unless the Community Development Department approves a larger special event. For greater clarity, the Department’s review and approval of any such larger event would necessarily occur within and be subject to the limitations and requirements of otherwise applicable City codes, regulations, and permit application/procedural requirements, as reflected in Council adopted codes and policies. 2 What I did tell you is that there are both Municipal Code limitations and constitutional concerns with conditions that limit the type of people one can have in their home at any given time (e.g., residents v. non-residents). People in private residences are allowed to gather and meet with visitors and guests in their private homes without government interference in their associational choices, so long as the conduct and number of residents and/or guests conforms to otherwise applicable law. The limiting language in the City Code (Section 17.110.050) derives from and reflects these constitutional limitations on governmental action and provides express protection against misapplication of City codes in a manner that could raise constitutional concerns. Notwithstanding the imprecise language of past CUPs you note below, the City has always interpreted and applied CUP language, and exercised its code and condition enforcement authority, in a manner consistent with constitutional limitations and requirements. Where I review past language and identify areas for improvement to more precisely reflect legally compliant conditions and enhance clarity in enforcement, I will always recommend such clarifications to my client. That context was and will continue to be the basis for my advice to my client. Prior to the recess, the Planning Commission was reviewing draft language that stated in part there shall be no “meetings” “or other types of similar activities” involving persons other than residents between certain hours. It has never been the recommendation of the City Attorney’s Office to our City client that the City should adopt or impose regulations or conditions governing who one can gather, meet with, or invite into their private residence at any given time of the day, because as stated above, regulations of a person’s private relationships and associations within one’s private home is generally unconstitutional; that is why Section 17.110.050 of our Municipal Code specifically limits conditions of this nature. Further, it is important to clarify that while I understand this was an important condition to you and other members of the public, the direction I received from my client before heading into recess was to craft a condition that limited noise during specified hours, which the adopted condition accomplishes. The Commission did not direct me to craft language to limit what type of person one can have in their residence based on the guest’s associational status. Indeed, I informed the Planning Commission on the record before heading into recess that I would be revising the draft condition language to resolve my concerns about freedom of association and would focus the condition on the regulation of noise. I did not receive any objection from the Planning Commission. In terms of pointing you to legal authority for my advice, that would be the United States and California Constitutions, which protect against government intrusion into private residences, relationship, and private associational activities, except to the extent that conduct violates generally applicable laws, while permitting reasonable local regulation of land use and conduct in residential areas. I am bcc’ing this response to your message to the Planning Director and the Planning Commission and will provide any additional legal clarifications to my client if so requested. Thank you, Markie Markie Kersten pronouns she/her/hers Assistant City Attorney City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 3 E mkersten@slocity.org T 805.781.7141 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 10:20 AM To: Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org> Subject: Clarification of your statements at Planning Commission This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Markie, Last night you told me that it is not legal to limit the occupancy of a fraternity, under their conditional use permit, during certain hours based on caselaw. Would you please cite those cases you were speaking of? For reference, this is the wording of the fraternity CUP that we proposed, and that is present in other fraternity CUPs in San Luis Obispo, that you said is not legal: This is the condition they decided on, in lieu of the one proposed, which has a different meaning and less mitigation: 4 "The fraternity will comply with Table 1 (Exterior Noise Limits) of section 9.12.060 between extended hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m., except as approved in writing as a special event by the Community Development Director." Please forward the cases you referred to last night. Thanks so much. -Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Friday, June 14, 2024 2:23 PM To:CityClerk; Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Subject:Public Records Request Attachments:CPRA for temporary event permits 17.86.260.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Andrea, I wanted to clarify my previous public records request. I am specifically seeking permits that were issued for events on private property. Section 17.86.260 B.4. Parades, Carnivals, Fair, Festivals; and B.5. Other Temporary or Intermittent Uses and Special Events, pertain to the information I am seeking because they relate to events on private property. I think I clarified in my original request that I am seeking information related to events on private property but just wanted to cite the section under which the permits would be issued. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Friday, June 14, 2024 4:41 PM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Public Records Request Attachments:PRR24179 Walker - Special event permits.pdf Hi Kathie, Thank you for your email. I have provided this clarification to staff, and they will search for records. Have a great weekend! 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: kathie walker < > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 2:23 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> Subject: Public Records Request This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Andrea, I wanted to clarify my previous public records request. I am specifically seeking permits that were issued for events on private property. Section 17.86.260 B.4. Parades, Carnivals, Fair, Festivals; and B.5. Other Temporary or Intermittent Uses and Special Events, pertain to the information I am seeking because they relate to events on private property. I think I clarified in my original request that I am seeking information related to events on private property but just wanted to cite the section under which the permits would be issued. Thank you, Kathie Walker City of San Luis Obispo 9 Q4 i III Request for Public Records Updated 05/2023 The California Public Records Act (Government Code 7921. et set.) was enacted to ensure public records are available for inspection by members of the public. Completion of this form will assist staff in identifying related records to accurately complete your request. Requested records will be distributed to the email address that is listed on this form, unless directed otherwise by City staff. Requests for printed records will require payment subject to the City's Comprehensive Fee Schedule. Payment must be rendered prior to production of printed materials. Name: Walker, Kathie Last First Date: 6/14/2024 Address: Street & Unit # City Email: Release Forms State Zip Phone: Requests for certain public records legally require release forms to be submitted for records to be distributed to the requestor. To help expedite your request, please read below and ensure additional information is submitted along with this public records request form. Personal health information Records containing personal health information require a HIPAA Release Form. Examples include fire incident reports, worker's compensation claims, etc. o HIPAA Release Form Printed residential and/or commercial building plans The Public Records Act does not allow the release of printed copies of this material without the permission of the architect/engineer copyright owner. The public records requestor is responsible for obtaining said authorization by completing all three release forms listed below. You may call the Community Development Department at (805) 781- 7170 to find out the name of the copyright owner. In -person viewing of plans do not require release forms. o Copies of Plans Affidavit o Plan Reauest Arch itect/E na i neer Authorization o Plan Reauest Owner Authorization Continued Record Information: List the records you are requesting. Specify relevant information such as: subject, title, incident number, location/address, person(s) involved, project name, etc. Please temporary use permits issued by the city of San Luis Obispo according to Section 17.86.260 Temporary and intermittent uses) B.4. Parades, Carnivals, Fairs, Festivals; and B.5. Other Temporary or Intermittent Uses and Special Events including but not limited to musical events, auctions, estate sales, clothing outlet sales, nonprofit benefits, parking lot sales, and car shows. Date and Time: Specify the incident date or date and time range of the requested records Permits to include events ranging from August 2021 to any future date for which the permit was granted Questions may be directed to the City Clerk's Office at (805) 781-7100. Submit Completed Forms To: cityclerk0s locity.org OR City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 YOUR REQUEST WILL BE PROCESSED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (PRA). California Government Code Section 7921. An Agency shall notify the requestor within 10 days from receipt of request with a Determination which states if the Agency is in possession, in whole or in part, of the requested documents, and possible legal exemptions which prohibit the release of non-disclosable documents, as outlined per the PRA. In some instances, an Agency may require an extension of up to 14 days to provide a Determination, as authorized by the PRA. A notice will be provided to the requestor setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a Determination is expected to be supplied. 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Monday, June 24, 2024 9:55 AM To:Kathie Walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:Records Request Response - PRR24179 Walker - Special event permits Attachments:PRR24179 Walker - Special event permits.pdf; Copy of temps.xlsx Kathie Walker, The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) received your request pursuant to the California Public Records Act delivered via email on June 13, 2024. Today’s production will complete our processing of the responsive documents and close the request. - Copy of temps.xlsx Please be advised that every effort has been made to search for all records which may fall within the scope of your records request, and, as such, we believe our search is quite thorough. However, if you have knowledge of a specific document which has not been provided in response to your request, please notify us, and we will be happy to provide the document(s) to you unless, of course, it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to California Government Code §7921.000 et seq. 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 City of San Luis Obispo 9 Q4 i III Request for Public Records Updated 05/2023 The California Public Records Act (Government Code 7921. et set.) was enacted to ensure public records are available for inspection by members of the public. Completion of this form will assist staff in identifying related records to accurately complete your request. Requested records will be distributed to the email address that is listed on this form, unless directed otherwise by City staff. Requests for printed records will require payment subject to the City's Comprehensive Fee Schedule. Payment must be rendered prior to production of printed materials. Name: Walker, Kathie Last First Date: 6/14/2024 Address: Street & Unit # City Email: Release Forms State Zip Phone: Requests for certain public records legally require release forms to be submitted for records to be distributed to the requestor. To help expedite your request, please read below and ensure additional information is submitted along with this public records request form. Personal health information Records containing personal health information require a HIPAA Release Form. Examples include fire incident reports, worker's compensation claims, etc. o HIPAA Release Form Printed residential and/or commercial building plans The Public Records Act does not allow the release of printed copies of this material without the permission of the architect/engineer copyright owner. The public records requestor is responsible for obtaining said authorization by completing all three release forms listed below. You may call the Community Development Department at (805) 781- 7170 to find out the name of the copyright owner. In -person viewing of plans do not require release forms. o Copies of Plans Affidavit o Plan Reauest Arch itect/E na i neer Authorization o Plan Reauest Owner Authorization Continued Record Information: List the records you are requesting. Specify relevant information such as: subject, title, incident number, location/address, person(s) involved, project name, etc. Please temporary use permits issued by the city of San Luis Obispo according to Section 17.86.260 Temporary and intermittent uses) B.4. Parades, Carnivals, Fairs, Festivals; and B.5. Other Temporary or Intermittent Uses and Special Events including but not limited to musical events, auctions, estate sales, clothing outlet sales, nonprofit benefits, parking lot sales, and car shows. Date and Time: Specify the incident date or date and time range of the requested records Permits to include events ranging from August 2021 to any future date for which the permit was granted Questions may be directed to the City Clerk's Office at (805) 781-7100. Submit Completed Forms To: cityclerk0s locity.org OR City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 YOUR REQUEST WILL BE PROCESSED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (PRA). California Government Code Section 7921. An Agency shall notify the requestor within 10 days from receipt of request with a Determination which states if the Agency is in possession, in whole or in part, of the requested documents, and possible legal exemptions which prohibit the release of non-disclosable documents, as outlined per the PRA. In some instances, an Agency may require an extension of up to 14 days to provide a Determination, as authorized by the PRA. A notice will be provided to the requestor setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a Determination is expected to be supplied. 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Monday, June 24, 2024 12:14 PM To:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Subject:Re: Records Request Response - PRR24179 Walker - Special event permits This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Thank you! On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 9:54 AM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote: Kathie Walker, The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) received your request pursuant to the California Public Records Act delivered via email on June 13, 2024. Today’s production will complete our processing of the responsive documents and close the request.  Copy of temps.xlsx Please be advised that every effort has been made to search for all records which may fall within the scope of your records request, and, as such, we believe our search is quite thorough. However, if you have knowledge of a specific document which has not been provided in response to your request, please notify us, and we will be happy to provide the document(s) to you unless, of course, it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to California Government Code §7921.000 et seq. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org 2 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Thursday, June 27, 2024 4:41 PM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: 7/2/2024, Item 6.a. Fee increase Hi Kathie, 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: kathie walker < > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2024 4:06 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 7/2/2024, Item 6.a. Fee increase This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. City Council Members, I write to vehemently oppose the current proposal to increase the cost of the non-applicant appeal fee to the city council related to a Planning Commission decision. If the city council approves the proposed amendment, fees for a non-applicant to appeal to the city council would increase by 471%, and would not be accessible to the average person. Yet that person might need to appeal because of a faulty decision that affects their property rights or neighborhood. The proposed fee is so unaffordable that it would eliminate one's ability to do so. A Tier 1 Appeal, which is an appeal to the city council, is currently $745.35 according to the form available on the City’s w ebsite. City staff are proposing an increase to $3,511.94 ($3,408 + $103.94 IT fee), a 471% increase. 2 In 2017, the fee increased from $281. When the city council discussed raising the appeal fee, their goal was to make appeals to the city council less common but still accessible to non-applicants who were recognized as those affected by a Planning Commission decision or advocates for those affected. A non-applicant appealing to the city council is usually:  Someone directly impacted by the decision, such as a development next door or a conditional use permit near their home that may affect their living situation, or  An advocate, such as a neighborhood group, on behalf of those affected or the neighborhood. Non-applicants are generally average residents or a group, not developers or organizations with deep pockets. The proposed $3,511 fee is outrageously unaffordable and a financial barrier to a non-applicant seeking relief. It will have the effect of silencing people, and more importantly, eliminating their right to appeal to a higher body. The Planning Commission’s decision is final unless appealed to the city council within 10 days. If a non-applicant is affected by the Planning Commission’s decision and wants to seek a legal remedy, they must first exhaust their remedies and appeal to the city council before they can seek relief in the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. An affected non-applicant cannot move onto the next level unless and until they appeal to the city council and pay the $3,511 fee. The fee for an appeal should not prevent a non-applicant from seeking relief, but the $3,511 fee is a barrier for most. A non- applicant should have access to an appeal to the city council for a reasonable fee. In comparison, the Court’s fees for filing a case are a small fraction of the cost of the proposed $3,511 fee to appeal to the city council, and fee waivers are available through the Superior Court for those with lower income. The staff report states that over the past five years, there have been only 14 non-applicant appeals or an average of 2.8 per year. Based on that figure, the difference in fees amounts to less than $8,000 per year: $3511.94 (proposed fee) - $745.35 (current fee) = $2,766.59 x 2.8 (appeals per year) = $7,746.45/year The ideal of democracy - allowing access by a non-applicant to appeal to their elected officials - is worth far more than $8,000/year. The proposed fee will discourage and prevent non-applicants from appealing decisions by the Planning Commission to their elected officials. That's not a just system. Please do not approve the fee increase for non-applicants. Also, in the spirit of inclusivity, the city council should implement a fee waiver to lower the cost of accessing an appeal for low-income people based on the number of people in their household, similar to a fee waiver for the courts in the State of California. Access to our elected officials, including grievances addressed through an appeal, should be accessible to everyone. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Thursday, June 27, 2024 9:24 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: 7/2/2024, Item 6.a. Fee increase Thanks for the thoughtful email Kathie. I will certainly ask staff some questions about what you have laid out, and take this all into consideration during deliberations. Michelle From: kathie walker < > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2024 4:06 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 7/2/2024, Item 6.a. Fee increase This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. City Council Members, I write to vehemently oppose the current proposal to increase the cost of the non-applicant appeal fee to the city council related to a Planning Commission decision. If the city council approves the proposed amendment, fees for a non-applicant to appeal to the city council would increase by 471%, and would not be accessible to the average person. Yet that person might need to appeal because of a faulty decision that affects their property rights or neighborhood. The proposed fee is so unaffordable that it would eliminate one's ability to do so. A Tier 1 Appeal, which is an appeal to the city council, is currently $745.35 according to the form available on the City’s w ebsite. City staff are proposing an increase to $3,511.94 ($3,408 + $103.94 IT fee), a 471% increase. In 2017, the fee increased from $281. When the city council discussed raising the appeal fee, their goal was to make appeals to the city council less common but still accessible to non-applicants who were recognized as those affected by a Planning Commission decision or advocates for those affected. 2 A non-applicant appealing to the city council is usually:  Someone directly impacted by the decision, such as a development next door or a conditional use permit near their home that may affect their living situation, or  An advocate, such as a neighborhood group, on behalf of those affected or the neighborhood. Non-applicants are generally average residents or a group, not developers or organizations with deep pockets. The proposed $3,511 fee is outrageously unaffordable and a financial barrier to a non-applicant seeking relief. It will have the effect of silencing people, and more importantly, eliminating their right to appeal to a higher body. The Planning Commission’s decision is final unless appealed to the city council within 10 days. If a non-applicant is affected by the Planning Commission’s decision and wants to seek a legal remedy, they must first exhaust their remedies and appeal to the city council before they can seek relief in the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. An affected non-applicant cannot move onto the next level unless and until they appeal to the city council and pay the $3,511 fee. The fee for an appeal should not prevent a non-applicant from seeking relief, but the $3,511 fee is a barrier for most. A non- applicant should have access to an appeal to the city council for a reasonable fee. In comparison, the Court’s fees for filing a case are a small fraction of the cost of the proposed $3,511 fee to appeal to the city council, and fee waivers are available through the Superior Court for those with lower income. The staff report states that over the past five years, there have been only 14 non-applicant appeals or an average of 2.8 per year. Based on that figure, the difference in fees amounts to less than $8,000 per year: $3511.94 (proposed fee) - $745.35 (current fee) = $2,766.59 x 2.8 (appeals per year) = $7,746.45/year The ideal of democracy - allowing access by a non-applicant to appeal to their elected officials - is worth far more than $8,000/year. The proposed fee will discourage and prevent non-applicants from appealing decisions by the Planning Commission to their elected officials. That's not a just system. Please do not approve the fee increase for non-applicants. Also, in the spirit of inclusivity, the city council should implement a fee waiver to lower the cost of accessing an appeal for low-income people based on the number of people in their household, similar to a fee waiver for the courts in the State of California. Access to our elected officials, including grievances addressed through an appeal, should be accessible to everyone. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Thursday, June 27, 2024 4:06 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:7/2/2024, Item 6.a. Fee increase This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. City Council Members, I write to vehemently oppose the current proposal to increase the cost of the non-applicant appeal fee to the city council related to a Planning Commission decision. If the city council approves the proposed amendment, fees for a non-applicant to appeal to the city council would increase by 471%, and would not be accessible to the average person. Yet that person might need to appeal because of a faulty decision that affects their property rights or neighborhood. The proposed fee is so unaffordable that it would eliminate one's ability to do so. A Tier 1 Appeal, which is an appeal to the city council, is currently $745.35 according to the form available on the City’s w ebsite. City staff are proposing an increase to $3,511.94 ($3,408 + $103.94 IT fee), a 471% increase. In 2017, the fee increased from $281. When the city council discussed raising the appeal fee, their goal was to make appeals to the city council less common but still accessible to non-applicants who were recognized as those affected by a Planning Commission decision or advocates for those affected. A non-applicant appealing to the city council is usually:  Someone directly impacted by the decision, such as a development next door or a conditional use permit near their home that may affect their living situation, or  An advocate, such as a neighborhood group, on behalf of those affected or the neighborhood. Non-applicants are generally average residents or a group, not developers or organizations with deep pockets. The proposed $3,511 fee is outrageously unaffordable and a financial barrier to a non-applicant seeking relief. It will have the effect of silencing people, and more importantly, eliminating their right to appeal to a higher body. The Planning Commission’s decision is final unless appealed to the city council within 10 days. If a non-applicant is affected by the Planning Commission’s decision and wants to seek a legal remedy, they must first exhaust their remedies and appeal to the 2 city council before they can seek relief in the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. An affected non-applicant cannot move onto the next level unless and until they appeal to the city council and pay the $3,511 fee. The fee for an appeal should not prevent a non-applicant from seeking relief, but the $3,511 fee is a barrier for most. A non- applicant should have access to an appeal to the city council for a reasonable fee. In comparison, the Court’s fees for filing a case are a small fraction of the cost of the proposed $3,511 fee to appeal to the city council, and fee waivers are available through the Superior Court for those with lower income. The staff report states that over the past five years, there have been only 14 non-applicant appeals or an average of 2.8 per year. Based on that figure, the difference in fees amounts to less than $8,000 per year: $3511.94 (proposed fee) - $745.35 (current fee) = $2,766.59 x 2.8 (appeals per year) = $7,746.45/year The ideal of democracy - allowing access by a non-applicant to appeal to their elected officials - is worth far more than $8,000/year. The proposed fee will discourage and prevent non-applicants from appealing decisions by the Planning Commission to their elected officials. That's not a just system. Please do not approve the fee increase for non-applicants. Also, in the spirit of inclusivity, the city council should implement a fee waiver to lower the cost of accessing an appeal for low-income people based on the number of people in their household, similar to a fee waiver for the courts in the State of California. Access to our elected officials, including grievances addressed through an appeal, should be accessible to everyone. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Wednesday, July 17, 2024 8:13 PM To:Mezzapesa, John; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Scott, Rick; E-mail Council Website; McDonald, Whitney; Stewart, Erica A; Shoresman, Michelle; Francis, Emily; Pease, Andy; Marx, Jan Cc:Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross; Carolyn Smith; Karen Adler; Stewjenkins Info; Doug Irion Subject:Cal Poly is hiding the locations of their illegal fraternities This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. San Luis Obispo City Leaders and Elected Representatives, I have worked very hard for the past couple of years to solve the problem of illegal satellite fraternity houses in our neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo because their parties and other disruptive behavior have ruined the quality of life for many of us, including me and my family. I spent many months preparing a report identifying illegal satellite fraternity houses in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, which include the main chapter houses for several fraternities at Cal Poly. Last year, all colleges and universities in California were required to publish a report online including the locations of their fraternities and the location, dates, and times of all "sanctioned events" held by every fraternity and sorority per Assembly Bill 524: The Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act (AB 524; Sections 66310-66312 of California Education Code). Most of the locations for "sanctioned events" listed in the AB 524 Report were at illegal fraternity houses in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. It is against the City's municipal code and zoning regulations for fraternities to operate in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. I cross-referenced the addresses from my report with Cal Poly's AB 524 report, which confirmed the locations of satellite fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. Subsequently, I provided my report to Community Development Director, Timmi Tway and Code Enforcement Supervisor, John Mezzapesa during a meeting on 11/8/2023. I have also kept John Mezzapesa updated about the fraternity's social media posts, advertising fraternity events at the illegal fraternities in our neighborhood. The last academic school year was worse than ever, as evidenced by the explosion of the number of calls to SLOPD during the 3-night Halloweekend event and the enormous turnout for St. Fratty's Day. As a side note, I contacted the property owner of 348 Hathway before St. Fratty's Day and he promised that the fraternity members would block off their property and they would not participate in the event. Still, several fraternities did host parties that day, and as you know, the event was a nightmare. It is by sheer luck that no one was hurt or killed during the event. From September to June, dozens of illegal fraternities in our neighborhood continued to operate Thursday - Sunday and the loud parties have made our lives a living hell. Summer and Winter Break are the only reprieves we have from the regular, disruptive, noisy fraternity parties operating illegally in our neighborhood. Recently, the City issued Notices of Violation and advisory letters to over 50 of the illegal fraternity houses. After the property owners and/or property managers received these notifications from the City, they contacted the City and Cal Poly's Greek Life office. Many claimed they were unaware that the house was holding fraternity events and they wanted their homes removed from Cal Poly's list of "satellite fraternity houses." As a result of this pushback, Cal Poly told the City that they will no longer keep track of their fraternity's satellite fraternity houses. These "satellite fraternity houses" are operated as full-fledged fraternity houses, 2 with rush events, huge parties that host sororities, and other "philanthropic" events with tons of loud, boisterous, intoxicated people. It's like having multiple nightclubs in a residential neighborhood with people walking from party to party, every weekend. Notably, some of these "satellite" fraternity houses are the main chapter houses for the fraternity and are located in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. These illegal fraternity houses have changed the fabric of our neighborhood and have made it unlivable every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. Several people, including me, my neighbors, and code enforcement, have been awaiting the publication of Cal Poly's AB 524 Report on 10/1/2024 so we can confirm new illegal fraternity houses that have popped up in our neighborhood, and those that still exist. It has come to my attention today that Cal Poly Greek Life just removed the addresses from their AB 524 Report online that identified "sanctioned events" at illegal fraternity houses within the neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. They have replaced the addresses with "San Luis Obispo". The only logical explanation for this action is that Cal Poly wants to hide the location of their illegal fraternity houses from the public and from the City of San Luis Obispo's code enforcement department. This also indicates that Cal Poly will not release the addresses in their report on 10/1/2024, for the events held at illegal fraternities during the last academic year, 2023-2024. Below is an example of Cal Poly's AB 524 Report when it was originally published on 10/1/2023 compared to today. As you can see, someone at Cal Poly recently altered the report and removed all the addresses. They did the same for every one of their 18 fraternities. Cal Poly does not care about our neighborhoods. They don't care that the ongoing disruptive parties at illegal satellite fraternity houses are destroying our lives. Otherwise, they would not try to secret their locations by 3 removing them from the AB 524 report and telling the City's code enforcement that they will no longer keep track of satellite fraternity locations. Why doesn't Cal Poly do something to solve the problem rather than continue to place the burden on the people who live near the nuisance fraternities? During the last academic school year, we could not sleep, rest, or enjoy our property from Thursday to Sunday. How is that okay? Last year, the Cal Poly employee who oversees Greek Life, Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola, told me that the disruptions caused by fraternities are not Cal Poly's responsibility. She suggested that I contact SLOPD and/or Code Enforcement. I did so, and now Greek Life is trying to make it difficult for San Luis Obispo to enforce its laws related to illegal fraternities. That isn't right. Throughout the past year, I have contacted the City Council about this ongoing issue and have received the same response: "We're working with Cal Poly." I want you to realize that this tactic did not work. Cal Poly does not want to cooperate. So now what? What is the City going to do to solve this problem since it is obvious that Cal Poly does not want to be part of the solution? There are dozens of illegal fraternities in our neighborhood that are taking up city resources with SLOPD response and ruining the quality of life for those who live here. Please let me know the next steps the City will take to tackle this problem that has become out of control. Thank you, Kathie Walker P.S. The city could have done something in 2015 after the roof collapsed during St. Fratty's Day and Cal Poly issued a report to the City and the community that identified illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 residential zones on Hathway. Back then, there were only a few illegal fraternities (all on Hathway Avenue) and ZERO near our home or in the Monterey Heights neighborhood. Now there are over 60! If the city were proactive then, this would not have happened. The illegal fraternities have exponentially overtaken the neighborhoods and continue to expand further each year. This situation is unacceptable and needs to be fixed. 1 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Thursday, July 18, 2024 11:56 AM To:kathie walker Cc:Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross; Carolyn Smith; Karen Adler; Stewjenkins Info; Doug Irion; Mezzapesa, John Subject:RE: Cal Poly is hiding the locations of their illegal fraternities BCC:CC Good morning, Kathie, First, Code Enforcement staff would like to thank you and the other members of RQN for the productive meeting yesterday about fraternities and the issues that you are facing in the neighborhood. As you know, we have been working to educate students and landlords about regulations and also enforce the zoning code when violations are identified. As you stated in your email, Community Development staff has also been working with Cal Poly over the past year to address the issues in the neighborhood. While it is true that the City’s Code Enforcement staff is ultimately responsible for ensuring zoning code compliance, there is a role for the university to play in ensuring that students and student groups are operating within the bounds of established regulations and educated about what the regulations are. We are disappointed to see the change that occurred with the AB524 report information that is provided online. We will be providing your email to Cal Poly leadership and speaking with them about the changes to the report information as well as the role that the University can play in addressing this issue. Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 8:13 PM To: Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Brett Cross < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Karen Adler < ; Stewjenkins Info < ; Doug Irion < Subject: Cal Poly is hiding the locations of their illegal fraternities This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. 2 San Luis Obispo City Leaders and Elected Representatives, I have worked very hard for the past couple of years to solve the problem of illegal satellite fraternity houses in our neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo because their parties and other disruptive behavior have ruined the quality of life for many of us, including me and my family. I spent many months preparing a report identifying illegal satellite fraternity houses in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, which include the main chapter houses for several fraternities at Cal Poly. Last year, all colleges and universities in California were required to publish a report online including the locations of their fraternities and the location, dates, and times of all "sanctioned events" held by every fraternity and sorority per Assembly Bill 524: The Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act (AB 524; Sections 66310-66312 of California Education Code). Most of the locations for "sanctioned events" listed in the AB 524 Report were at illegal fraternity houses in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. It is against the City's municipal code and zoning regulations for fraternities to operate in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. I cross-referenced the addresses from my report with Cal Poly's AB 524 report, which confirmed the locations of satellite fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. Subsequently, I provided my report to Community Development Director, Timmi Tway and Code Enforcement Supervisor, John Mezzapesa during a meeting on 11/8/2023. I have also kept John Mezzapesa updated about the fraternity's social media posts, advertising fraternity events at the illegal fraternities in our neighborhood. The last academic school year was worse than ever, as evidenced by the explosion of the number of calls to SLOPD during the 3-night Halloweekend event and the enormous turnout for St. Fratty's Day. As a side note, I contacted the property owner of 348 Hathway before St. Fratty's Day and he promised that the fraternity members would block off their property and they would not participate in the event. Still, several fraternities did host parties that day, and as you know, the event was a nightmare. It is by sheer luck that no one was hurt or killed during the event. From September to June, dozens of illegal fraternities in our neighborhood continued to operate Thursday - Sunday and the loud parties have made our lives a living hell. Summer and Winter Break are the only reprieves we have from the regular, disruptive, noisy fraternity parties operating illegally in our neighborhood. Recently, the City issued Notices of Violation and advisory letters to over 50 of the illegal fraternity houses. After the property owners and/or property managers received these notifications from the City, they contacted the City and Cal Poly's Greek Life office. Many claimed they were unaware that the house was holding fraternity events and they wanted their homes removed from Cal Poly's list of "satellite fraternity houses." As a result of this pushback, Cal Poly told the City that they will no longer keep track of their fraternity's satellite fraternity houses. These "satellite fraternity houses" are operated as full-fledged fraternity houses, with rush events, huge parties that host sororities, and other "philanthropic" events with tons of loud, boisterous, intoxicated people. It's like having multiple nightclubs in a residential neighborhood with people walking from party to party, every weekend. Notably, some of these "satellite" fraternity houses are the main chapter houses for the fraternity and are located in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. These illegal fraternity houses have changed the fabric of our neighborhood and have made it unlivable every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. Several people, including me, my neighbors, and code enforcement, have been awaiting the publication of Cal Poly's AB 524 Report on 10/1/2024 so we can confirm new illegal fraternity houses that have popped up in our neighborhood, and those that still exist. It has come to my attention today that Cal Poly Greek Life just removed the addresses from their AB 524 Report online that identified "sanctioned events" at illegal fraternity houses within the neighborhoods in 3 San Luis Obispo. They have replaced the addresses with "San Luis Obispo". The only logical explanation for this action is that Cal Poly wants to hide the location of their illegal fraternity houses from the public and from the City of San Luis Obispo's code enforcement department. This also indicates that Cal Poly will not release the addresses in their report on 10/1/2024, for the events held at illegal fraternities during the last academic year, 2023-2024. Below is an example of Cal Poly's AB 524 Report when it was originally published on 10/1/2023 compared to today. As you can see, someone at Cal Poly recently altered the report and removed all the addresses. They did the same for every one of their 18 fraternities. Cal Poly does not care about our neighborhoods. They don't care that the ongoing disruptive parties at illegal satellite fraternity houses are destroying our lives. Otherwise, they would not try to secret their locations by removing them from the AB 524 report and telling the City's code enforcement that they will no longer keep track of satellite fraternity locations. Why doesn't Cal Poly do something to solve the problem rather than continue to place the burden on the people who live near the nuisance fraternities? During the last academic school year, we could not sleep, rest, or enjoy our property from Thursday to Sunday. How is that okay? Last year, the Cal Poly employee who oversees Greek Life, Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola, told me that the disruptions caused by fraternities are not Cal Poly's responsibility. She suggested that I contact SLOPD and/or Code Enforcement. I did so, and now Greek Life is trying to make it difficult for San Luis Obispo to enforce its laws related to illegal fraternities. That isn't right. 4 Throughout the past year, I have contacted the City Council about this ongoing issue and have received the same response: "We're working with Cal Poly." I want you to realize that this tactic did not work. Cal Poly does not want to cooperate. So now what? What is the City going to do to solve this problem since it is obvious that Cal Poly does not want to be part of the solution? There are dozens of illegal fraternities in our neighborhood that are taking up city resources with SLOPD response and ruining the quality of life for those who live here. Please let me know the next steps the City will take to tackle this problem that has become out of control. Thank you, Kathie Walker P.S. The city could have done something in 2015 after the roof collapsed during St. Fratty's Day and Cal Poly issued a report to the City and the community that identified illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 residential zones on Hathway. Back then, there were only a few illegal fraternities (all on Hathway Avenue) and ZERO near our home or in the Monterey Heights neighborhood. Now there are over 60! If the city were proactive then, this would not have happened. The illegal fraternities have exponentially overtaken the neighborhoods and continue to expand further each year. This situation is unacceptable and needs to be fixed. 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Thursday, July 18, 2024 11:02 AM To:Mezzapesa, John Cc:Steven Walker Subject:Current list of fraternity CUPs This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. John, Thank you so much for taking the time to attend the RQN meeting yesterday! I still have questions but first I want to follow up on the CUPs for fraternities that currently exist. you said there are 14 CUPs for fraternities. When I submitted a public records request under the CPRA last year, you gave me seven, and since then another was issued for 1264 Foothill, which makes eight. I have included the addresses and CUP numbers below. If there are now 14, then I am missing six. Perhaps you found them since my CPRA request last year? Would you please forward the six CUPs I am missing? I appreciate your help and want to make sure that I'm working with complete and accurate information. -Kathie Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT U 1099, 8/2/1983 Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista Place (R4) USE PERMIT U 106-98, 8/12/1998 Delta Upsilon 720 E. Foothill Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT U 36-09, 6/24/2009 Lambda Chi Alpha 1264 Foothill Blvd, etc. (R4) USE PERMIT USE-0331-2023 Phi Kappa Psi 1335 E. Foothill (R4) USE PERMIT U 47-10, 6/13/2013 Sigma Nu 1304 Foothill Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT U 1484, 05/08/1991 Sigma Nu 1292 Foothill (R4) USE PERMIT U-109 05 (Note: CUP was originally Lambda Chi Alpha but stays with the land) Alpha Gamma Rho 132 California Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT U 144-97, 12/10/1997 1 From:Mezzapesa, John Sent:Friday, July 19, 2024 11:30 AM To:kathie walker Cc:Steven Walker Subject:RE: Current list of fraternity CUPs Hi Kathy, Here is the list of use permits that I work from. They are for both fraternities and sororities. I know of some of these may be void due to lack of use (as noted) but the status hasn’t changed in our system. Address Plan Number Permit Approval Date Plan Status 1236 Monte Vista U 106-98 8/12/1998 Approved 135 Crandall U 109-05 4/15/2008 Approved 137 Crandall 123 Crandall 1290 Foothill 1292 Foothill 1304 Foothill U 1484-90 5/8/1991 Approved 190 Crandall 1326 Higuera U 799-79 11/14/1979 Approved 1328 Foothill USE-0803-2019 2/24/2021 Approved 1335 Foothill U 47-10 6/13/2013 Approved 1464 Foothill U 1292-87 2/11/1987 Approved 180 California U 1440-89 5/24/1989 Approved 190 Stenner USE-3369-2016 11/28/2016 Approved 244 California U 314-71 9/21/1971 Approved 280 California U 1099 8/2/1983 Approved 615 Grand U 1048 8/11/1982 Approved 700 Grand U 41-09 5/27/2009 Approved 720 Foothill U 36-09 6/24/2009 Approved 1264 Foothill U 86-01 10/10/2001 Approved (Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090) USE-0331-2023 Under Review 132 California U 144-97 12/10/1997 Approved (Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090) 1716 Osos U 110-13 11/25/2013 Approved (Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090) 570 Pacific U 0619 9/7/1977 Approved (Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090) 2 696 Foothill U 578-82 6/9/1982 Approved (Can't locate permit - unknown status & conditions. Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090. Currently an RCFE) From: kathie walker < > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 11:02 AM To: Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org> Cc: Steven Walker < > Subject: Current list of fraternity CUPs This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. John, Thank you so much for taking the time to attend the RQN meeting yesterday! I still have questions but first I want to follow up on the CUPs for fraternities that currently exist. you said there are 14 CUPs for fraternities. When I submitted a public records request under the CPRA last year, you gave me seven, and since then another was issued for 1264 Foothill, which makes eight. I have included the addresses and CUP numbers below. If there are now 14, then I am missing six. Perhaps you found them since my CPRA request last year? Would you please forward the six CUPs I am missing? I appreciate your help and want to make sure that I'm working with complete and accurate information. -Kathie Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT U 1099, 8/2/1983 Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista Place (R4) USE PERMIT U 106-98, 8/12/1998 Delta Upsilon 720 E. Foothill Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT U 36-09, 6/24/2009 Lambda Chi Alpha 1264 Foothill Blvd, etc. (R4) USE PERMIT USE-0331-2023 Phi Kappa Psi 1335 E. Foothill (R4) USE PERMIT U 47-10, 6/13/2013 Sigma Nu 1304 Foothill Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT U 1484, 05/08/1991 Sigma Nu 1292 Foothill (R4) USE PERMIT U-109 05 (Note: CUP was originally Lambda Chi Alpha but stays with the land) Alpha Gamma Rho 132 California Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT U 144-97, 12/10/1997 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Friday, July 19, 2024 6:37 PM To:Mezzapesa, John; Steven Walker Cc:Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith Subject:Re: Current list of fraternity CUPs Thank you, John. I have noted the fraternities and sororities in the rows on your spreadsheet so you can see the difference. My main focus is fraternities because they are the most disruptive in hosting sororities, rush, and other "philanthropic" events. Sororities can't host parties with alcohol so they go to the fraternities to party. 132 California is on your spreadsheet and is occupied by the Alpha Gamma Rho fraternity. They were suspended from Cal Poly in 2023, so the fraternity is not in good standing with the university. SLOMC 17.86.130 A.3. states, "...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." This was included in the report I gave to you on 11/8/2023. The AB 524 Report also shows the fraternity as "suspended" and it does not list their address as "Affiliated Chapter Houses" on page 11 of their report because the fraternity is not in good standing and, therefore not affiliated with Cal Poly. Here is a link to their suspension on Cal Poly's website: https://clubs.calpoly.edu/student-organization- sanction-information Finally, I want to point out that there are only eight (8) Conditional Use Permits for fraternities, including the one under review for Lambda Chi Alpha at 1264 Foothill. Sigma Nu has two (2) of those CUPs, thus, only seven (7) fraternities have CUPs for fraternity operations, yet there are 18 fraternities in the Interfraternity Council at Cal Poly. Eleven fraternities don't have CUPs. Here is a list of those and the addresses at which they have their main chapter house and are operating as a full-fledged fraternity house at those addresses. Events for each locations can be found on their Instagram pages: 1. Alpha Sigma Pi, 1218/1220 Bond Street (R-1) is the main chapter house. They also hold events at 299 Albert Drive (R-1). 2. Beta Theta Pi, 1327 E. Foothill Blvd (R-4) (You said they are working on getting a CUP.) They also hold events at 1220 Fredericks Street (R-2). 3. Kappa Sigma, 281 Hathway is the main chapter house (R-1). They also hold events at 322 Hathway (R-2), 526 Kentucky (R-2), 1990 McCollum (R-1), 295 Albert (R-1), 1861 Hope (R-1), 1142 Montalban (T-C), and 108 Crandall (R-4). 4. Phi Delta Theta, 260 Chaplin Lane (R-1) is their main chapter house. They also hold events at 470 Grand Avenue (R-1) and 568 Ellen Way (R-2). 5. Phi Gamma Delta (aka "FIJI") 1254 Bond Street (R-1) is their main chapter house. They also hold events at 1256 Bond Street (R-1) and 1229 Fredericks Street (R-2). 6. Phi Sigma Kappa, 348/350 Hathway (R-2) is their main chapter house. They also hold events at 1908 Loomis (R-1). 7. Sigma Phi Epsilon, 2090 Hays (R-1) is their main chapter house. 2 8. Pi Kappa Phi, 740 W. Foothill (County) is their main chapter house. They also hold events at 66 Rafael Way (R-1) and 447 N. Chorro (R-1). 9. Sigma Pi, 1525 Slack Street (R-1) is their main chapter house. They also hold events at 124 Stenner Street (R-4). 10. Theta Chi, 1820 Hope Street (R-1) is their main chapter house. They also hold events at 410 Grand Avenue (R-1) which is across the street from 1820 Hope, 1441 Slack Street (R-1), 496 Kentucky and 1350 Stafford Street (R-2), 2149 Santa Ynez (R-1), 1661 McCollum (R-1), and 1238 E. Foothill (R-4). (They were also at 191 Kentucky (R-1) but I think the landlord had them move out after receiving the City's notice). 11. Zeta Beta Tau, 654 Graves (R-4) is their main chapter house. They also hold events at 658 Graves (R-4), 1928 Garfield (R-4), 244 Albert Drive (R-1), 2044 Loomis (R-1), and 1841 Slack Street (R-1). I did not include addresses for satellite fraternity houses when the fraternity has a CUP for their main chapter house even though there are active satellite houses in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods that host events for those fraternities. I included the satellites with those listed above as a reference to the zoning because some could potentially apply for a CUP when they are located in an R-3 or R-4 zone. I have a couple of questions:  What do you think is the solution for the fraternities that don't have CUPs, especially if they don't have any houses in an R-3 or R-4 zone?  Is Cal Poly involved in finding a solution? Thanks again for your help. -Kathie Address Plan Number Permit Approval Date Plan Status 1236 Monte Vista (DELTA CHI Fraternity) U 106-98 8/12/1998 Approved 135 Crandall U 109-05 4/15/2008 Approved 137 Crandall 123 Crandall 1290 Foothill 1292 Foothill (SIGMA NU Fraternity) 1304 Foothill U 1484-90 5/8/1991 Approved 190 Crandall (SIGMA NU Fraternity) 1326 Higuera gamma phi beta sorority U 799-79 11/14/1979 Approved 1328 Foothill delta gamma sorority USE-0803-2019 2/24/2021 Approved 1335 Foothill (PHI KAPPA PSI Fraternity) U 47-10 6/13/2013 Approved 1464 Foothill alpha chi omega sorority U 1292-87 2/11/1987 Approved 3 180 California kappa alpha theta sorority U 1440-89 5/24/1989 Approved 190 Stenner alpha omicron phi sorority USE-3369-2016 11/28/2016 Approved 244 California kappa kappa gamma sorority U 314-71 9/21/1971 Approved 280 California (ALPHA EPSILON PI Fraternity) U 1099 8/2/1983 Approved 615 Grand sigma kappa sorority U 1048 8/11/1982 Approved 700 Grand chi omega sorority U 41-09 5/27/2009 Approved 720 Foothill (DELTA UPSILON Fraternity) U 36-09 6/24/2009 Approved 1264 Foothill (LAMBDA CHI ALPHA Fraternity) U 86-01 10/10/2001 Approved (Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090) USE-0331-2023 Under Review 132 California (ALPHA GAMMA RHO Fraternity) U 144-97 12/10/1997 Approved (Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090) 1716 Osos U 110-13 11/25/2013 Approved (Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090) 570 Pacific U 0619 9/7/1977 Approved (Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090) 696 Foothill U 578-82 6/9/1982 Approved (Can't locate permit - unknown status & conditions. Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090. Currently an RCFE) On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 11:30 AM Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathy, Here is the list of use permits that I work from. They are for both fraternities and sororities. I know of some of these may be void due to lack of use (as noted) but the status hasn’t changed in our system. Address Plan Number Permit Approval Date Plan Status 1236 Monte Vista U 106-98 8/12/1998 Approved 4 135 Crandall U 109-05 4/15/2008 Approved 137 Crandall 123 Crandall 1290 Foothill 1292 Foothill 1304 Foothill U 1484-90 5/8/1991 Approved 190 Crandall 1326 Higuera U 799-79 11/14/1979 Approved 1328 Foothill USE-0803-2019 2/24/2021 Approved 1335 Foothill U 47-10 6/13/2013 Approved 1464 Foothill U 1292-87 2/11/1987 Approved 180 California U 1440-89 5/24/1989 Approved 190 Stenner USE-3369-2016 11/28/2016 Approved 244 California U 314-71 9/21/1971 Approved 280 California U 1099 8/2/1983 Approved 615 Grand U 1048 8/11/1982 Approved 700 Grand U 41-09 5/27/2009 Approved 720 Foothill U 36-09 6/24/2009 Approved 1264 Foothill U 86-01 10/10/2001 Approved (Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090) USE-0331-2023 Under Review 132 California U 144-97 12/10/1997 Approved (Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090) 1716 Osos U 110-13 11/25/2013 Approved (Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090) 570 Pacific U 0619 9/7/1977 Approved (Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090) 696 Foothill U 578-82 6/9/1982 Approved (Can't locate permit - unknown status & conditions. Possibly void for lack of use per 17.110.090. Currently an RCFE) From: kathie walker < > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 11:02 AM To: Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org> Cc: Steven Walker < > Subject: Current list of fraternity CUPs 5 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. John, Thank you so much for taking the time to attend the RQN meeting yesterday! I still have questions but first I want to follow up on the CUPs for fraternities that currently exist. you said there are 14 CUPs for fraternities. When I submitted a public records request under the CPRA last year, you gave me seven, and since then another was issued for 1264 Foothill, which makes eight. I have included the addresses and CUP numbers below. If there are now 14, then I am missing six. Perhaps you found them since my CPRA request last year? Would you please forward the six CUPs I am missing? I appreciate your help and want to make sure that I'm working with complete and accurate information. -Kathie Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT U 1099, 8/2/1983 Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista Place (R4) USE PERMIT U 106-98, 8/12/1998 Delta Upsilon 720 E. Foothill Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT U 36-09, 6/24/2009 Lambda Chi Alpha 1264 Foothill Blvd, etc. (R4) USE PERMIT USE-0331-2023 Phi Kappa Psi 1335 E. Foothill (R4) USE PERMIT U 47-10, 6/13/2013 Sigma Nu 1304 Foothill Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT U 1484, 05/08/1991 Sigma Nu 1292 Foothill (R4) USE PERMIT U-109 05 (Note: CUP was originally Lambda Chi Alpha but stays with the land) 6 Alpha Gamma Rho 132 California Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT U 144-97, 12/10/1997 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Friday, September 6, 2024 2:53 PM To:Courtney Leigh Kienow Cc:Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Karen Adler; Stewjenkins Info; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Jeffrey D. Armstrong; Mezzapesa, John Subject:Re: FW: Cal Poly Fraternities This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Courtney, Your first email said that Cal Poly removed the addresses of the sanctioned events from its AB 524 Reports because "we realized we were the only one of the 23 CSUs that posted the exact addresses. To provide for privacy and security, and for consistency with other universities, we now include only the city in which the event was held." But that statement about other CSUs not publishing the address of their sanctioned events is not true. In my response, I pointed out that the CSU system created a template that specifically says "Address On/Off Campus" in the column heading for each sanctioned event. It does not say "City" in the heading, yet Cal Poly replaced every address with "San : Luis Obispo." Your latest email says: "Cal Poly originally understood that none of the CSUs published addresses of event locations. We investigated further and found that you are correct about some other CSUs sharing the addresses. It is true that the majority do not." Again, your statement that the majority of the 23 CSUs do not publish the exact address is not true. I have looked at their reports and more than half, which is the majority, DO publish the addresses for their sanctioned events. That's not really the point of my correspondence, but I wanted to make you aware that the information you've provided is not true. You originally contended that Cal Poly "realized" it was the only CSU to post the addresses of sanctioned events, and that was the reason they decided to remove the addresses which was untrue. It is obvious that Cal Poly removed the addresses because the City of San Luis Obispo and Code Enforcement contacted Cal Poly about the illegal fraternity operations in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods which were confirmed by the AB 524 Report. Everyone knows that's the truth. Other excuses are not credible. Your previous email also said that Cal Poly Greek life "party registration policy and guidelines are going through the annual update" which implies that they are reviewed annually. But that is not true either. According to Cal Poly Greek Life, the same party registration policy and guidelines have been in place since they were adopted in 2014 as a result of the Deferred Recruitment Compromise, which was a result of Carson Starkey's hazing death at a satellite fraternity house. A comparison of the document since 2014 shows it has not changed. It is disingenuous to claim they are "going through the annual update". I haven't seen the "annual update" but we all know (without even seeing it) that Cal Poly is rewriting the party registration policy and guidelines to hide the locations of satellite fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. The policy that required events to be held at a registered satellite fraternity house will be removed, right? But that doesn't solve the problem because they will still operate and make our weekends unbearable with their loud parties. 2 This was never a problem for Cal Poly until the City of San Luis Obispo Code Enforcement told Cal Poly that those operations were not legal and sent out Notices of Violation and Advisory Letters to properties. Regardless of whether Cal Poly hides the locations of their fraternity operations by eliminating "documentation" of their locations, it is still obvious to those who live near them because of the loud, disruptive parties every weekend. The illegal fraternity operations have ruined the lives of many people in our neighborhoods who cannot have peace in their properties from Thursday to Sunday during the academic year. How can I, our neighborhoods, and the City of San Luis Obispo trust you when you have misrepresented the facts? You also did not answer my question about whether Cal Poly keeps track of the main Chapter house for each of their fraternity houses, including those in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. Most of the main chapter houses for Cal Poly's fraternities are located in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods . Do you have documentation of the main chapter houses for each of Cal Poly's fraternities? You have used the "legal definition" for main Chapter houses that applies only to AB 524, which is brand new legislation. Does, or has Cal Poly, ever kept a record of the main chapter houses for its fraternities, even if they aren't owned by the fraternity corporation? Thank you, Kathie On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 9:35 AM Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> wrote: Hi Kathie, Thank you for your feedback. We will keep exploring ways to improve the situation for all. I wanted to follow up regarding the information I previously shared about publishing addresses for sanctioned events across CSU campuses. Cal Poly originally understood that none of the CSUs published addresses of event locations. We investigated further and found that you are correct about some other CSUs sharing the addresses. It is true that the majority do not. I apologize for the earlier incorrect information. Thank you for your understanding. Courtney 3 From: kathie walker < > Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 at 12:24 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>, Jeffrey Dyer Armstrong <jarmstro@calpoly.edu> Cc: Carolyn Smith < , Sandra Rowley < , Brett Cross < , Stewjenkins Info < , Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < , Karen Adler < Subject: Re: FW: Cal Poly Fraternities Thank you for your response, Courtney. Your email states: "However, the law does not require that universities publish the exact addresses where the events are held. As you note, Cal Poly published that data for the first time in October 2023. After doing so, we realized we were the only one of the 23 CSUs that posted the exact addresses. To provide for privacy and security, and for consistency with other universities, we now include only the city in which the event was held. The exception would be if misconduct (hazing and Title IX violations) occurs, the specific address is required to be listed." Cal Poly's interpretation of AB 524 is incorrect and many other CSUs have published the addresses of their sanctioned events on their AB 524 reports. It is a misrepresentation to claim that "Cal Poly is the only one of the 23 CSUs that posted the exact address." Those universities that did not post their addresses are not in compliance with AB 524. In fact, the CSU system published a template for the AB 524 reports to make it easier for their school locations to fill out information related to the requirements of AB 524. The template for sanctioned events specifically states "Address (On and Off Campus", not "location", as shown below. It is not ambiguous. Also, I'm sure you agree that it looks suspicious that Cal Poly removed the addresses from their AB 524 report only after they were contacted by the City of San Luis Obispo, including Code Enforcement, regarding the illegal locations of fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. It is not credible that Cal Poly removed the addresses on their own accord because they "realized" they were the only CSU that published the addresses. This is especially true considering that many other CSUs have published the exact addresses of sanctioned events at their locations. In your answer to my question about Cal Poly keeping track of satellite houses, you cite the legal requirements of AB 524 and the Assembly Bill's definition of a "chapter house" which has nothing to do with "satellite houses". And the Assembly Bill's definition. Cal Poly could have its own definition of a chapter house, 4 especially considering that many of the "chapter houses" for Cal Poly's fraternities are in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. How does Cal Poly keep track of the main chapter houses for each of their fraternities? Most CSUs keep track of their chapter house addresses and contact info (owner, landlord, etc.) even if they aren't owned by the fraternity corporation. Does Cal Poly do this? I asked if Cal Poly has decided to stop keeping track of its fraternity satellite houses and you did not answer my question. I have been tolerant and my patience is running thin because it does not seem that Cal Poly cares about the neighborhoods or, for that matter, code enforcement and the laws related to fraternity operations in R-1 and R- 2 neighborhoods. We are literally unable to rest, sleep, and enjoy our property on weekends due to the 40 documented fraternities in our neighborhood. Our neighborhood is tired of the abuse and needs meaningful solutions, including Cal Poly cooperating with its neighbors to solve this problem. Please let me know what, if any plan is in place to stop the illegal fraternity activity in our neighborhood. Sincerely, Kathie On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 11:42 AM Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> wrote: Hi Kathie, Again, thank you for reaching out. I’m glad Supervisor Arnold suggested you email us. I was able to share your email with several Cal Poly leaders. We understand the gravity of the issues you’ve outlined and want to assure you that Cal Poly takes them very seriously. The university remains committed to working collaboratively with local authorities, residents, and our campus community to address these issues. 5 Assembly Bill 524, known as the Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act, requires universities to collect and publish specific information related to sororities and fraternities. This includes data on sanctioned events, such as the date, time, and location of these events. However, the law does not require that universities publish the exact addresses where the events are held. As you note, Cal Poly published that data for the first time in October 2023. After doing so, we realized we were the only one of the 23 CSUs that posted the exact addresses. To provide for privacy and security, and for consistency with other universities, we now include only the city in which the event was held. The exception would be if misconduct (hazing and Title IX violations) occurs, the specific address is required to be listed. The Deferred Recruitment Compromise is not a binding agreement nor does it last indefinitely. It was a solution to issues pertinent at the time. As other policies and legal requirements evolve, so too do the requirements for fraternities. A Greek Row is identified in Cal Poly’s Master Plan. I directly answer your questions at the bottom of the email in red text. We appreciate your continued engagement and look forward to working together to find resolutions that benefit both the university and the broader community. Sincerely, Courtney Courtney Kienow pronouns she/hers (why is this important?) Director of Community Relations and Economic Development Office of the President Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA _____ office 805-756-6000 direct 805-756-6098 www.calpoly.edu 6 From: kathie walker < > Date: Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 10:52 PM To: Jeffrey Dyer Armstrong <jarmstro@calpoly.edu>, Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Cal Poly Fraternities Hi Dr. Armstrong and Courtney, I corresponded with the County Supervisor for District 5 to encourage her to attend the first SCLC meeting this academic year. I also explained about ongoing issues related to Cal Poly's illegal fraternity operations and their detrimental effect on neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo, including the effects of noisy parties on my family and several other people who have reached out to me from various neighborhoods including Alta Vista, Monterey Heights, and the S. Tassajara/Ramona area. The Supervisor offered a list of people to contact, including you, so I am reaching out to you for solutions. I previously emailed you, Courtney, about the ongoing issues but there was never any resolution and the problem has compounded over the past two years, as more illegal fraternity houses have moved into our neighborhood. My initial complaints about noise from fraternities in our neighborhood led to targeted harassment, cyber-stalking (see my email from 4/24/2023 "Ongoing harassment from fraternity tenants at 1267 Fredericks Street"), and recently, on 6/2/2024, vile threats were yelled at my home by college-aged guys, specifically naming me. Someone also trespassed onto our property on St. Frattys Day (3/16/2024) and came up to my bedroom window, said my name, then told a bystander that they were friends with the Sigma Pi fraternity members who lived next to us during the 2022 - 2023 academic year. Each of these events was captured on our video surveillance. I also sent the County Supervisor a link to Assembly Bill 524: The Campus-Recognized Sorority and Transparency Act (AB 524), with the requirements that sororities and fraternities provide specific information to Cal Poly on or before July 1st, including a list of their sanctioned events and the date, time, and address location of those events for the previous academic year. Cal Poly published their AB 524 Report for last year on October 1, 2023, as mandated, including the date, time, and address location of each sanctioned event held by sororities and fraternities at Cal Poly during the previous academic year 2022-2023. I had already identified the addresses of fraternity houses, including "satellite houses" before Cal Poly published their AB 524 Report, but was able to cross-reference the addresses to confirm their locations. Most of Cal Poly's main Chapter houses are "satellite houses" and are not owned by the fraternities. They are rental homes in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. 7 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) and Zoning Regulations prohibit fraternities and sororities from operating in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods, which means they are not allowed to hold "sanctioned events" or "parties" as defined in the Party Registration Policy and Guidelines of Greek life at Cal Poly. I reached out to Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola at Cal Poly's Greek life office and she directed me to contact SLOPD and/or Code Enforcement. I then met with City Administration and Code Enforcement, and they began investigating the illegal fraternity operations. The City's code enforcement supervisor, John Mezzapesa, met with Cal Poly staff and members of Greek life to explain the SLOMC and Zoning Regulations, and the prohibition of fraternity and sorority operations in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. The City was able to identify over 50 illegal fraternity houses and sent Notices of Violation or Advisory Letters to those properties. Shortly after the City sent these notifications, Cal Poly staff told John Mezzapesa that Cal Poly would no longer keep track of their satellite fraternity houses, which include the main Chapter houses for many of Cal Poly's fraternities. Additionally, during this same timeframe, Cal Poly staff edited their AB 524 Report online and erased all of the addresses for sanctioned events for every fraternity and sorority during the 2022-2023 academic year, and replaced the addresses with the generic location of "San Luis Obispo". It is evident that Cal Poly took these actions after realizing the illegal operations of their fraternities, and to hide the information from the City and the public. The Party Registration Policy and Guidelines were enacted as a part of the Deferred Recruitment Compromise between Dr. Armstrong and Greek Life Leaders / Keith Humphrey. In 2010, Cal Poly implemented a deferred rush policy for freshman males that did not allow them to join fraternities until their second quarter. The policy was a result of the death of Cal Poly student Carson Starkey, who died from acute alcohol poisoning due to fraternity-related hazing at a satellite fraternity house. Soon after the deferred recruitment was announced, representatives from the NIC flew to Cal Poly to visit with administrators and spurred a three-year campaign to restore recruitment of the freshman fraternity members in the fall. In 2013, Dr. Armstrong entered into the Deferred Recruitment Compromise with Greek leadership and Keith Humphrey. One commitment in the Compromise was the implementation of a Party Registration Program that specifically included "satellite houses". Now, Cal Poly has discarded the commitment. It is no longer keeping track of the fraternity satellite houses and parties at satellite houses will no longer be registered with Cal Poly's Greek life office, per the commitments in the Deferred Compromise Agreement and Party Registration Policy. This was confirmed recently when I made a public records request and received a response from the Public Records Access Officer, Maren Hufton, that "the location of a sanctioned event must be held at a chapter house or at a 3rd party venue", excluding "a registered satellite house" from the locations that Greek life parties can be held per the Party Registration Policy. She also confirmed that Cal Poly no longer has a list of satellite houses. I am certain Cal Poly understands the risks of alcohol consumption at fraternity houses, including satellite houses, especially considering that Carson Starkey died from alcohol intoxication at a fraternity event in a satellite fraternity house. There are at least 50 satellite fraternity houses in Alta Vista and Monterey Heights 8 that have ongoing fraternity parties, including hosting sororities since the Panhellenic Conference does not allow parties with alcohol at sorority houses. Is Cal Poly really going to a blind eye to these events? Another commitment made in the Deferred Recruitment Compromise was that Cal Poly would recruit more fraternities to campus. In 2016, Cal Poly administration and Greek leaders met with potential fraternities and chose to add four additional Chapters to Cal Poly: Pi Kappa Phi, Alpha Sigma Phi, Gamma Delta, and Phi Delta Theta. They are now all members of Cal Poly's IFC. Every one of those fraternities has illegal "satellite houses" in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods that operate as full-fledged fraternity houses. Why does Cal Poly continue to recruit fraternities when they cannot provide a legal location for their operations? It is unfair to the City to bear that burden and for the residents to live with more and more disruptive parties every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. Does Cal Poly understand the negative impact that these constant loud fraternity parties have on the other residents who live near these fraternity houses in the City's neighborhoods? Does Cal Poly care? Courtney, you followed me out of a city council meeting a couple of years ago and told me that Cal Poly does care. I asked you, "Really?" because I didn't know whether to believe you or not. Based on the fact that Cal Poly erased the addresses from their AB 524 Report, and has told the City that they will no longer keep track of satellite fraternity houses, and has refused narrow records requests that do no legal exemption that allow them to be withheld, it does not seem that Cal Poly cares about transparency or accountability to the City and the neighborhoods. I share Jan Marx's view that the best long-term solution is for Cal Poly to have a Greek Row on campus. This has been mentioned multiple times since Carson Starkey died at a satellite fraternity house in 2008, the commitment was included in the Deferred Recruitment Compromise, and the idea is referenced in Cal Poly's Master Plan. It is also mentioned in San Luis Obispo's General Plan. We, collectively, have reached a tipping point and there needs to be meaningful progress toward a solution. Until a Greek Row is built, I ask that Cal Poly work with the City and our neighborhoods to relocate its fraternities into legal locations, in R-3 and R-4 zones, and stop allowing fraternities to host events in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. We cannot continue to live with the extreme disruptions that have been created by Cal Poly's fraternities in our neighborhoods. Please let me know what solutions you propose and a timeline for implementation. Also please answer these questions:  Does Cal Poly plan to stop keeping track of satellite houses for its fraternities? In accordance with legal requirements, Cal Poly publishes the address for each chapter house, which is a residence that is not owned by the university but occupied by a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity, or a residence that is owned and occupied by the campus-recognized sorority or fraternity. Cal Poly does not own any chapter houses.  Does Cal Poly understand that the main Chapter houses for many of its fraternities are "satellite houses" in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods? Cal Poly recognizes “chapter houses” as defined by the law. Cal Poly has no control over the location of chapter houses or other houses used by fraternities. 9  Is Cal Poly changing their Party Registration Policy and Guidelines for Greek life whereby they will no longer review or list events held at satellite fraternity houses? The current party registration policy and guidelines are going through the annual update.  Does Cal Poly plan to help fraternities find legal locations for their fraternities? Fraternities are independent of the university and we do not provide them with legal advice or real estate services. However, as with all student organizations, we offer guidance and assistance.  Is Cal Poly planning to recruit more Chapters to campus? Cal Poly remains open to having more chapters. Thank you for your time and I hope we can work together to solve these issues. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:44 PM To:CityClerk Subject:Records request under the CPRA This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Please provide the following information according to the CPRA:  Copies of all Advisory Letters, Notices of Violation and/or any other correspondence whether electronic or written, related to suspected or confirmed illegal fraternity operations issued by the City of San Luis Obispo from 11/8/2023 to the present date, 9/12/2024.  All email conversations, notes, and any other written documentation between John Mezzapesa and Elizabeth Aiello-Copolla with the words "fraternity" "Greek" "unpermitted" "illegal" "municipal code" from 11/8/2023 to the present date, 9/12/2024. If you determine that any or all of the records I’m looking to obtain will incur a charge, I ask you to note whether it is necessary in this case to charge for records that are requested. I also ask for signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is to be charged for. If there are any charges for the records I’m looking to obtain, I ask for that to be communicated to me before you secure the documents I’m requesting. Furthermore, if there are any charges for the records I’m looking to obtain, I ask for those charges to be waived. I ask that these records be given to me as digital files emailed to me at If you determine that any or all of the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information. If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed. Please contact me with any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:53 PM To:Kathie Walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:Records Request Acknowledgement - PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence/records 11/8/23 - present Attachments:PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence_records 11_8_23 - present.pdf Kathie Walker, The City is in receipt of your public records request as of September 12, 2024, and will begin searching for responsive documents. If you have any questions in the meantime, feel free to contact me. Thank you. 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 To:CityClerk Subject:Records request under the CPRA This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Please provide the following information according tothe CPRA: Copies ofallAdvisory Letters, Notices ofViolation and/orany other correspondence whether electronic orwritten, related tosuspected orconfirmed illegal fraternity operations issued bythe City ofSanLuis Obispo from 11/8/2023 tothepresent date, 9/12/2024. Allemail conversations, notes, and any other written documentation between John Mezzapesa and Elizabeth Aiello-Copolla withthe words "fraternity" "Greek" "unpermitted" "illegal" "municipal code" from 11/8/2023 tothepresent date, 9/12/2024. Ifyou determine that any or all of the records I’m looking to obtain willincur acharge, Iask you tonote whether itis necessary in this case to charge for records that are requested. Ialso ask for signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely ifyou determine that any or alloftheinformation is tobe charged for. Ifthere are any charges for the records I’mlooking toobtain, Iask forthat tobe communicated tome before you secure thedocuments I’mrequesting. Furthermore, ifthere are any charges for the records I’m looking toobtain, Iask forthose charges tobe waived. I ask that these records be given to me as digital files emailed to me at Ifyou determine that any oralloftheinformation qualifies foranexemption from disclosure, Iask youto note whether, asisnormally thecase under theAct, theexemption isdiscretionary, and ifsowhether itis necessary inthis case to exercise your discretion towithhold theinformation. Ifyoudetermine that some butnotalloftheinformation isexempt from disclosure andthat youintend to withhold it, Iask that you redact itfor thetime being and make therest available asrequested. Inany event, please provide asigned notification citing thelegal authorities onwhich you relyifyou determine thatany or allof theinformation isexempt and willnot bedisclosed. Please contact mewith any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 5:19 PM To:Wallace, Christine Cc:Mickel, Fred; Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross; McDonald, Whitney; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Carolyn Smith Subject:Re: Question about "How to be a Good Neighbor" flyer A SNAP officer said that he was told that the daytime noise ordinance is 50 feet from the property line, so the ordinance is getting confusing for lots of people, including officers. Will you please ensure that the officers are trained with the actual ordinance? And they could be given the example of backyard parties. The lots in our neighborhood are at least 150' deep. If an officer can hear the party from the sidewalk in front of the house, it's likely a violation of the noise ordinance. Thank you, Kathie On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 4:05 PM Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, No apologies need, happy to provide information. Yes, the large postcard was produced by me. I use the property line language to provide better guidance to youthful residents. I am open to changing the postcard for next year after evaluating the effectiveness of it this year. Best, Christine From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 3:00 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Cc: Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Brett Cross < ; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < ; Carolyn Smith < Subject: Question about "How to be a Good Neighbor" flyer This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. 2 Hi Christine, Sorry for the multiple emails. I'm catching up on a lot of work. Do you know who put together the "How to be a Good Neighbor" flyer for the City? I thought you were in charge of that. If not, who is? We received a flyer and it states that the Noise Ordinance between 7 AM and 10 PM "can't be heard 50 feet from your property line" but the City's ordinance actually says it's a noise violation if noise is "plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from the noisemaker", not the property line. So if someone is having a loud party in their backyard, which frequently happens at fraternity houses in our neighborhood, the measurement is supposed to be from the source of the noise in the backyard. The property line is not mentioned in the City's noise ordinance except for the noise standards from 10 PM to 7 AM. This is covered on SLOPD's website. It is frequent misunderstanding by SNAP officers and even some newer SLOPD officers who think they should measure from the property line during the day when the ordinance says it is measured from the noisemaker, which most of the time is in the backyard of a property. It would be great if the information could be clarified. Thank you. -Kathie 3 1 From:Wallace, Christine Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 4:05 PM To:kathie walker Cc:Mickel, Fred; Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross; McDonald, Whitney; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Carolyn Smith Subject:RE: Question about "How to be a Good Neighbor" flyer Hi Kathie, No apologies need, happy to provide information. Yes, the large postcard was produced by me. I use the property line language to provide better guidance to youthful residents. I am open to changing the postcard for next year after evaluating the effectiveness of it this year. Best, Christine From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 3:00 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Cc: Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Brett Cross < ; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < ; Carolyn Smith < Subject: Question about "How to be a Good Neighbor" flyer This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Christine, Sorry for the multiple emails. I'm catching up on a lot of work. Do you know who put together the "How to be a Good Neighbor" flyer for the City? I thought you were in charge of that. If not, who is? We received a flyer and it states that the Noise Ordinance between 7 AM and 10 PM "can't be heard 50 feet from your property line" but the City's ordinance actually says it's a noise violation if noise is "plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from the noisemaker", not the property line. So if someone is having a loud party in their backyard, which frequently happens at fraternity houses in our neighborhood, the measurement is supposed to be from the source of the noise in the backyard. The property line is not mentioned in the City's noise ordinance except for the noise standards from 10 PM to 7 AM. This is covered on SLOPD's website. It is frequent misunderstanding by SNAP officers and even some newer SLOPD officers who think they should measure from the property line during the day when the ordinance says it is measured from the noisemaker, which most of the time is in the backyard of a property. It would be great if the information could be clarified. Thank you. -Kathie 2 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 3:00 PM To:Wallace, Christine Cc:Mickel, Fred; Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross; McDonald, Whitney; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Carolyn Smith Subject:Question about "How to be a Good Neighbor" flyer This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Christine, Sorry for the multiple emails. I'm catching up on a lot of work. Do you know who put together the "How to be a Good Neighbor" flyer for the City? I thought you were in charge of that. If not, who is? We received a flyer and it states that the Noise Ordinance between 7 AM and 10 PM "can't be heard 50 feet from your property line" but the City's ordinance actually says it's a noise violation if noise is "plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from the noisemaker", not the property line. So if someone is having a loud party in their backyard, which frequently happens at fraternity houses in our neighborhood, the measurement is supposed to be from the source of the noise in the backyard. The property line is not mentioned in the City's noise ordinance except for the noise standards from 10 PM to 7 AM. This is covered on SLOPD's website. It is frequent misunderstanding by SNAP officers and even some newer SLOPD officers who think they should measure from the property line during the day when the ordinance says it is measured from the noisemaker, which most of the time is in the backyard of a property. It would be great if the information could be clarified. Thank you. -Kathie 2 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 2:03 PM To:Wallace, Christine; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Dietrick, Christine Cc:Sandra Rowley; E-mail Council Website; McDonald, Whitney; Brett Cross; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Mickel, Fred Subject:Re: Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. Hi Christine, I'm looping CDD into this email for clarification. Cal Poly has 19 fraternities in the IFC (one of those, Alpha Gamma Rho is suspended until Fall 2025 but still has parties.) Only 7 of those 19 have Conditional Use Permits or what you refer to as "lettered houses". The fraternities also have dozens of satellite houses that hold fraternity-related events in the City's R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. So under the City's current system, the main Chapter houses for the other fraternities are not "recognized" by SLOPD or the City because they don't have a CUP, and they are allowed to have the citation history wiped clean if the property owner claims the main Chapter fraternity house has all new tenants? But the 7 fraternities with CUPs can't do that? That is not a good system and needs to be updated. The City should have a database with SLOPD that identifies the addresses of documented fraternity houses, especially the main Chapter houses for fraternities (which you are referring to as "satellite houses") even if they don't have a CUP. It's especially important that they are identified in a database because, without a CUP, there is no way to regulate the main Chapter house's behavior whereas a CUP can be re-evaluated by the Planning Commission if its terms are violated. The main Chapter house for Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 & 350 Hathway should never have been eligible for removal from the "no warning" list and something is wrong with the current system. The citation history at that property is egregious. Each of the main Chapter houses for Cal Poly's fraternities should be included in a database, with automatic SLOPD response (not SNAP) and not eligible for the Early Removal Program, just like the fraternities with CUPS, including these main Chapter house locations:  Alpha Sigma Phi at 1218 & 1220 Bond Street (R-1 zoning)  Kappa Sigma at 281 Hathway Avenue (R-1 zoning)  Phi Delta Theta at 260 Chaplin Lane (R-1 zoning)  Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI) at 1254 &1256 Bond Street (R-1 zoning)  Phi Sigma Kappa (already mentioned) at 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue (R-2 zoning)  Sigma Phi Epsilon at 2090 Hays (R-1 zoning)  Sigma Pi at 1525 Slack (R-1 zoning)  Theta Chi at 1820 Hope (R-1 zoning) There are many other fraternities operating that have been identified by John Mezzapesa and CDD. Why aren't those identified in a database for an automatic call from SLOPD instead of SNAP, and not allowed to be removed from the "no warning" list, consistent with the City's policy for fraternity operations? 2 Hopefully, City leadership, SLOPD, and CDD are working together to solve the horrific problem of illegal fraternity houses that have overtaken our City's neighborhoods! Allowing these known fraternities to wipe their citation history clean and be removed from the "no warning" list is not reasonable. Also, the form for Early Removal should include the legal requirement that the property owner is declaring under penalty of perjury that they have had a tenant turnover. It does not make sense that there are no legal consequences for people who aren't honest about that, and who are potentially motivated to be removed because they and their tenants don't want to continue paying $1,000 fines. When a program can be improved, it should be. Let's work together to fix these problems. -Kathie To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 348 Hathway 4.26.2024 party and others.mp4 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 1:12 PM Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> wrote: Kathie, This property is known to PD as a satellite house. The lettered houses with Use Permits are those that PD keeps on the no-warning list, and that information is provided to me annually by CDD. The language used on the e-form is what has been used for many years as approved by the City Attorney’s office. Best, Christine From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:47 AM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Brett Cross < ; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < ; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. Are fraternity houses eligible for the Early Removal List? SLOPD and the City also know it is a fraternity house. It was also identified by Cal Poly as the main Chapter house for Phi Sigma Kappa in their AB 524 Report filed last year. 3 I've also spoken with the property owner, Gordon McCormick, who was a classmate of my daughter and son- in-law at Cal Poly. He admitted that the house is a fraternity house for Phi Sigma Kappa. You can see the house on the fraternity's Instagram page. Of course it is a huge benefit for the property owner to claim he's had a full turnover of tenancy to stop the bleeding of the $1,000 fines that he gets after each citation. It's also easy for him to claim he's had a turnover of tenancy, but IT IS THE SAME FRATERNITY. This property, and other known fraternity houses, should not be allowed to Early Removal from the "no warning" list. Also, I noticed the form you have online for Early Removal does not require the property to declare, under penalty of perjury, that they've had a turnover of tenants. What are the consequences if they are not being honest? This seems like a flawed system. On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:36 AM Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, The tenants received a DAC because over the summer, the property owner submitted to me an Early Removal request as there was full tenant turnover. Property owners can submit to SLOPD the request showing new tenants at which time I pull the property off the no-warning list making the house eligible for a warning. Best, Christine Wallace Police Public Affairs Manager Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E cwallace@slocity.org T 805.781.7186 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 4 This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:28 AM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Brett Cross < ; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Subject: Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Christine, I noticed that the main Chapter facility for Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue received a Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC) instead of a citation on 9/10/2024 (#240910095). I did not call for this party but the illegal fraternity at this property has been a public nuisance for years. I'm sure you are aware of the extensive noise calls and citations at this property, which is a documented fraternity house dating back to Cal Poly's report after the roof collapse, which identified this fraternity house as the "founders" of St. Fratty's Day in 2009. The last request I made for the history was on 5/21/2024, below. Properties are not eligible for a DAC when they've had a citation within the previous year and this property has had about 10 citations in the previous year. I realize it's expensive for the tenants and the property owners to receive $1,000 fines for each citation, but the point of those consequences is to hopefully change behavior. 5 I made a video about the ongoing problems at this house in April 2024 and sent it to the City Council (attached). Nothing was done and the fraternity house continued to have parties until the end of the academic year. Now they've started up again. How in the world did this fraternity get a DAC on 9/10/2024? Thank you, Kathie 348 Hathway 4.26.2024 party and others.mp4 1 From:Wallace, Christine Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 3:58 PM To:kathie walker; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Dietrick, Christine Cc:Sandra Rowley; E-mail Council Website; McDonald, Whitney; Brett Cross; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Mickel, Fred Subject:RE: Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. Hi Kathie, Correct, a property owner may submit an Early Removal if a property does not have the Use Permit. For properties that we have the knowledge they are a satellite house, we no longer allow those tenants to register parties with our Party Reg program. I appreciate your thoughts on this complex issue; however, I won’t be making any changes to this process at this time as that will require collaboration with all stakeholders and guidance from City leadership. Best, Christine From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 2:03 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Brett Cross < ; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < ; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. Hi Christine, I'm looping CDD into this email for clarification. Cal Poly has 19 fraternities in the IFC (one of those, Alpha Gamma Rho is suspended until Fall 2025 but still has parties.) Only 7 of those 19 have Conditional Use Permits or what you refer to as "lettered houses". The fraternities also have dozens of satellite houses that hold fraternity-related events in the City's R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. So under the City's current system, the main Chapter houses for the other fraternities are not "recognized" by SLOPD or the City because they don't have a CUP, and they are allowed to have the citation history wiped clean if the property owner claims the main Chapter fraternity house has all new tenants? But the 7 fraternities with CUPs can't do that? That is not a good system and needs to be updated. The City should have a database with SLOPD that identifies the addresses of documented fraternity houses, especially the main Chapter houses for fraternities (which you are referring to as "satellite houses") even if they don't have a CUP. It's especially important that they are identified in a database because, without a CUP, there is no way to regulate the main Chapter house's behavior whereas a CUP can be re-evaluated by the Planning Commission if its terms are violated. 2 The main Chapter house for Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 & 350 Hathway should never have been eligible for removal from the "no warning" list and something is wrong with the current system. The citation history at that property is egregious. Each of the main Chapter houses for Cal Poly's fraternities should be included in a database, with automatic SLOPD response (not SNAP) and not eligible for the Early Removal Program, just like the fraternities with CUPS, including these main Chapter house locations:  Alpha Sigma Phi at 1218 & 1220 Bond Street (R-1 zoning)  Kappa Sigma at 281 Hathway Avenue (R-1 zoning)  Phi Delta Theta at 260 Chaplin Lane (R-1 zoning)  Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI) at 1254 &1256 Bond Street (R-1 zoning)  Phi Sigma Kappa (already mentioned) at 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue (R-2 zoning)  Sigma Phi Epsilon at 2090 Hays (R-1 zoning)  Sigma Pi at 1525 Slack (R-1 zoning)  Theta Chi at 1820 Hope (R-1 zoning) There are many other fraternities operating that have been identified by John Mezzapesa and CDD. Why aren't those identified in a database for an automatic call from SLOPD instead of SNAP, and not allowed to be removed from the "no warning" list, consistent with the City's policy for fraternity operations? Hopefully, City leadership, SLOPD, and CDD are working together to solve the horrific problem of illegal fraternity houses that have overtaken our City's neighborhoods! Allowing these known fraternities to wipe their citation history clean and be removed from the "no warning" list is not reasonable. Also, the form for Early Removal should include the legal requirement that the property owner is declaring under penalty of perjury that they have had a tenant turnover. It does not make sense that there are no legal consequences for people who aren't honest about that, and who are potentially motivated to be removed because they and their tenants don't want to continue paying $1,000 fines. When a program can be improved, it should be. Let's work together to fix these problems. -Kathie 348 Hathway 4.26.2024 party and others.mp4 On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 1:12 PM Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> wrote: Kathie, This property is known to PD as a satellite house. The lettered houses with Use Permits are those that PD keeps on the no-warning list, and that information is provided to me annually by CDD. The language used on the e-form is what has been used for many years as approved by the City Attorney’s office. 3 Best, Christine From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:47 AM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Brett Cross < ; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < ; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. Are fraternity houses eligible for the Early Removal List? SLOPD and the City also know it is a fraternity house. It was also identified by Cal Poly as the main Chapter house for Phi Sigma Kappa in their AB 524 Report filed last year. I've also spoken with the property owner, Gordon McCormick, who was a classmate of my daughter and son- in-law at Cal Poly. He admitted that the house is a fraternity house for Phi Sigma Kappa. You can see the house on the fraternity's Instagram page. Of course it is a huge benefit for the property owner to claim he's had a full turnover of tenancy to stop the bleeding of the $1,000 fines that he gets after each citation. It's also easy for him to claim he's had a turnover of tenancy, but IT IS THE SAME FRATERNITY. This property, and other known fraternity houses, should not be allowed to Early Removal from the "no warning" list. Also, I noticed the form you have online for Early Removal does not require the property to declare, under penalty of perjury, that they've had a turnover of tenants. What are the consequences if they are not being honest? This seems like a flawed system. On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:36 AM Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, The tenants received a DAC because over the summer, the property owner submitted to me an Early Removal request as there was full tenant turnover. Property owners can submit to SLOPD the request showing new tenants at which time I pull the property off the no-warning list making the house eligible for a warning. 4 Best, Christine Wallace Police Public Affairs Manager Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E cwallace@slocity.org T 805.781.7186 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:28 AM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Brett Cross < ; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Subject: Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Christine, I noticed that the main Chapter facility for Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue received a Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC) instead of a citation on 9/10/2024 (#240910095). I did not call for this party but the illegal fraternity at this property has been a public nuisance for years. I'm sure you are aware of 5 the extensive noise calls and citations at this property, which is a documented fraternity house dating back to Cal Poly's report after the roof collapse, which identified this fraternity house as the "founders" of St. Fratty's Day in 2009. The last request I made for the history was on 5/21/2024, below. Properties are not eligible for a DAC when they've had a citation within the previous year and this property has had about 10 citations in the previous year. I realize it's expensive for the tenants and the property owners to receive $1,000 fines for each citation, but the point of those consequences is to hopefully change behavior. I made a video about the ongoing problems at this house in April 2024 and sent it to the City Council (attached). Nothing was done and the fraternity house continued to have parties until the end of the academic year. Now they've started up again. How in the world did this fraternity get a DAC on 9/10/2024? Thank you, Kathie 348 Hathway 4.26.2024 party and others.mp4 6 1 From:Wallace, Christine Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:35 AM To:kathie walker Cc:Sandra Rowley; E-mail Council Website; McDonald, Whitney; Brett Cross; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Mickel, Fred Subject:RE: Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. Hi Kathie, The tenants received a DAC because over the summer, the property owner submitted to me an Early Removal request as there was full tenant turnover. Property owners can submit to SLOPD the request showing new tenants at which time I pull the property off the no-warning list making the house eligible for a warning. Best, Christine Wallace Police Public Affairs Manager Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E cwallace@slocity.org T 805.781.7186 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:28 AM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Brett Cross < ; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Subject: Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Christine, 2 I noticed that the main Chapter facility for Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue received a Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC) instead of a citation on 9/10/2024 (#240910095). I did not call for this party but the illegal fraternity at this property has been a public nuisance for years. I'm sure you are aware of the extensive noise calls and citations at this property, which is a documented fraternity house dating back to Cal Poly's report after the roof collapse, which identified this fraternity house as the "founders" of St. Fratty's Day in 2009. The last request I made for the history was on 5/21/2024, below. Properties are not eligible for a DAC when they've had a citation within the previous year and this property has had about 10 citations in the previous year. I realize it's expensive for the tenants and the property owners to receive $1,000 fines for each citation, but the point of those consequences is to hopefully change behavior. I made a video about the ongoing problems at this house in April 2024 and sent it to the City Council (attached). Nothing was done and the fraternity house continued to have parties until the end of the academic year. Now they've started up again. How in the world did this fraternity get a DAC on 9/10/2024? Thank you, Kathie 348 Hathway 4.26.2024 party and others.mp4 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:47 AM To:Wallace, Christine Cc:Sandra Rowley; E-mail Council Website; McDonald, Whitney; Brett Cross; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Mickel, Fred Subject:Re: Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. Are fraternity houses eligible for the Early Removal List? SLOPD and the City also know it is a fraternity house. It was also identified by Cal Poly as the main Chapter house for Phi Sigma Kappa in their AB 524 Report filed last year. I've also spoken with the property owner, Gordon McCormick, who was a classmate of my daughter and son-in- law at Cal Poly. He admitted that the house is a fraternity house for Phi Sigma Kappa. You can see the house on the fraternity's Instagram page. Of course it is a huge benefit for the property owner to claim he's had a full turnover of tenancy to stop the bleeding of the $1,000 fines that he gets after each citation. It's also easy for him to claim he's had a turnover of tenancy, but IT IS THE SAME FRATERNITY. This property, and other known fraternity houses, should not be allowed to Early Removal from the "no warning" list. Also, I noticed the form you have online for Early Removal does not require the property to declare, under penalty of perjury, that they've had a turnover of tenants. What are the consequences if they are not being honest? This seems like a flawed system. On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:36 AM Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, The tenants received a DAC because over the summer, the property owner submitted to me an Early Removal request as there was full tenant turnover. Property owners can submit to SLOPD the request showing new tenants at which time I pull the property off the no-warning list making the house eligible for a warning. Best, Christine Wallace Police Public Affairs Manager Police Department 2 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E cwallace@slocity.org T 805.781.7186 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:28 AM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Brett Cross < com>; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Subject: Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Christine, I noticed that the main Chapter facility for Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue received a Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC) instead of a citation on 9/10/2024 (#240910095). I did not call for this party but the illegal fraternity at this property has been a public nuisance for years. I'm sure you are aware of the extensive noise calls and citations at this property, which is a documented fraternity house dating back to Cal Poly's report after the roof collapse, which identified this fraternity house as the "founders" of St. Fratty's Day in 2009. The last request I made for the history was on 5/21/2024, below. Properties are not eligible for a DAC when they've had a citation within the previous year and this property has had about 10 citations in the previous year. I realize it's expensive for the tenants and the property owners to receive $1,000 fines for each citation, but the point of those consequences is to hopefully change behavior. 3 I made a video about the ongoing problems at this house in April 2024 and sent it to the City Council (attached). Nothing was done and the fraternity house continued to have parties until the end of the academic year. Now they've started up again. How in the world did this fraternity get a DAC on 9/10/2024? Thank you, Kathie 348 Hathway 4.26.2024 party and others.mp4 1 From:Wallace, Christine Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 1:13 PM To:kathie walker Cc:Sandra Rowley; E-mail Council Website; McDonald, Whitney; Brett Cross; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Mickel, Fred Subject:RE: Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. Kathie, This property is known to PD as a satellite house. The lettered houses with Use Permits are those that PD keeps on the no-warning list, and that information is provided to me annually by CDD. The language used on the e-form is what has been used for many years as approved by the City Attorney’s office. Best, Christine From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:47 AM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Brett Cross < ; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < ; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. Are fraternity houses eligible for the Early Removal List? SLOPD and the City also know it is a fraternity house. It was also identified by Cal Poly as the main Chapter house for Phi Sigma Kappa in their AB 524 Report filed last year. I've also spoken with the property owner, Gordon McCormick, who was a classmate of my daughter and son-in- law at Cal Poly. He admitted that the house is a fraternity house for Phi Sigma Kappa. You can see the house on the fraternity's Instagram page. Of course it is a huge benefit for the property owner to claim he's had a full turnover of tenancy to stop the bleeding of the $1,000 fines that he gets after each citation. It's also easy for him to claim he's had a turnover of tenancy, but IT IS THE SAME FRATERNITY. This property, and other known fraternity houses, should not be allowed to Early Removal from the "no warning" list. Also, I noticed the form you have online for Early Removal does not require the property to declare, under penalty of perjury, that they've had a turnover of tenants. What are the consequences if they are not being honest? This seems like a flawed system. On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:36 AM Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, 2 The tenants received a DAC because over the summer, the property owner submitted to me an Early Removal request as there was full tenant turnover. Property owners can submit to SLOPD the request showing new tenants at which time I pull the property off the no-warning list making the house eligible for a warning. Best, Christine Wallace Police Public Affairs Manager Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E cwallace@slocity.org T 805.781.7186 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:28 AM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Brett Cross < ; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Subject: Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Christine, 3 I noticed that the main Chapter facility for Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue received a Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC) instead of a citation on 9/10/2024 (#240910095). I did not call for this party but the illegal fraternity at this property has been a public nuisance for years. I'm sure you are aware of the extensive noise calls and citations at this property, which is a documented fraternity house dating back to Cal Poly's report after the roof collapse, which identified this fraternity house as the "founders" of St. Fratty's Day in 2009. The last request I made for the history was on 5/21/2024, below. Properties are not eligible for a DAC when they've had a citation within the previous year and this property has had about 10 citations in the previous year. I realize it's expensive for the tenants and the property owners to receive $1,000 fines for each citation, but the point of those consequences is to hopefully change behavior. I made a video about the ongoing problems at this house in April 2024 and sent it to the City Council (attached). Nothing was done and the fraternity house continued to have parties until the end of the academic year. Now they've started up again. How in the world did this fraternity get a DAC on 9/10/2024? Thank you, Kathie 4 348 Hathway 4.26.2024 party and others.mp4 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:28 AM To:Wallace, Christine Cc:Sandra Rowley; E-mail Council Website; McDonald, Whitney; Brett Cross; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre Subject:Nuisance fraternity at 348 & 350 Hathway got a DAC? They've had 10 citations in the past year. This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Christine, I noticed that the main Chapter facility for Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue received a Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC) instead of a citation on 9/10/2024 (#240910095). I did not call for this party but the illegal fraternity at this property has been a public nuisance for years. I'm sure you are aware of the extensive noise calls and citations at this property, which is a documented fraternity house dating back to Cal Poly's report after the roof collapse, which identified this fraternity house as the "founders" of St. Fratty's Day in 2009. The last request I made for the history was on 5/21/2024, below. Properties are not eligible for a DAC when they've had a citation within the previous year and this property has had about 10 citations in the previous year. I realize it's expensive for the tenants and the property owners to receive $1,000 fines for each citation, but the point of those consequences is to hopefully change behavior. I made a video about the ongoing problems at this house in April 2024 and sent it to the City Council (attached). Nothing was done and the fraternity house continued to have parties until the end of the academic year. Now they've started up again. 2 How in the world did this fraternity get a DAC on 9/10/2024? Thank you, Kathie To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 348 Hathway 4.26.2024 party and others.mp4 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Friday, September 20, 2024 10:16 AM To:Kathie Walker Cc:CityClerk; City_Attorney Subject:PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence/records 11/8/23 - present Attachments:PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence_records 11_8_23 - present.pdf Kathie Walker, The emails responsive to your request are hereby produced. This production was reviewed by Eric Wooten, Paralegal, and Sadie Symens, Deputy City Attorney. Personal contact information and standing Zoom call information was redacted pursuant to Gov. Code § 7922.000, as the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. CityClerk\Public Records Request\2024\09-12-2024 PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence/records 11/8/23 - present\Responsive Records\PRR24265 Walker Emails Staff is still determining if there are additional responsive records for your request and we will provide you with an update on Monday September 23, 2024. 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 To:CityClerk Subject:Records request under the CPRA This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Please provide the following information according tothe CPRA: Copies ofallAdvisory Letters, Notices ofViolation and/orany other correspondence whether electronic orwritten, related tosuspected orconfirmed illegal fraternity operations issued bythe City ofSanLuis Obispo from 11/8/2023 tothepresent date, 9/12/2024. Allemail conversations, notes, and any other written documentation between John Mezzapesa and Elizabeth Aiello-Copolla withthe words "fraternity" "Greek" "unpermitted" "illegal" "municipal code" from 11/8/2023 tothepresent date, 9/12/2024. Ifyou determine that any or all of the records I’m looking to obtain willincur acharge, Iask you tonote whether itis necessary in this case to charge for records that are requested. Ialso ask for signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely ifyou determine that any or alloftheinformation is tobe charged for. Ifthere are any charges for the records I’mlooking toobtain, Iask forthat tobe communicated tome before you secure thedocuments I’mrequesting. Furthermore, ifthere are any charges for the records I’m looking toobtain, Iask forthose charges tobe waived. I ask that these records be given to me as digital files emailed to me at Ifyou determine that any or all of the information qualifies foranexemption from disclosure, Iask youto note whether, asisnormally thecase under theAct, theexemption isdiscretionary, and ifsowhether itis necessary inthis case to exercise your discretion towithhold theinformation. Ifyoudetermine that some butnotalloftheinformation isexempt from disclosure andthat youintend to withhold it, Iask that you redact itfor thetime being and make therest available asrequested. Inany event, please provide asigned notification citing thelegal authorities onwhich you relyifyou determine thatany or allof theinformation isexempt and willnot bedisclosed. Please contact mewith any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Monday, September 23, 2024 5:02 PM To:Kathie Walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:Records Request Response - PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence/records 11/8/23 - present Attachments:PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence_records 11_8_23 - present.pdf Kathie Walker, The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) received your request pursuant to the California Public Records Act delivered via email on September 12, 2024. Today’s production will complete our processing of the responsive documents and close the request. - PRR24265 Walker CDD Files Please note, the Community Development Department lost copies of some of the notices sent out. All the letters sent out are listed in the spreadsheet and most copies are included in this production. Please be advised that every effort has been made to search for all records which may fall within the scope of your records request, and, as such, we believe our search is quite thorough. However, if you have knowledge of a specific document which has not been provided in response to your request, please notify us, and we will be happy to provide the document(s) to you unless, of course, it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to California Government Code §7921.000 et seq. 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 To:CityClerk Subject:Records request under the CPRA This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Please provide the following information according tothe CPRA: Copies ofallAdvisory Letters, Notices ofViolation and/orany other correspondence whether electronic orwritten, related tosuspected orconfirmed illegal fraternity operations issued bythe City ofSanLuis Obispo from 11/8/2023 tothepresent date, 9/12/2024. Allemail conversations, notes, and any other written documentation between John Mezzapesa and Elizabeth Aiello-Copolla withthe words "fraternity" "Greek" "unpermitted" "illegal" "municipal code" from 11/8/2023 tothepresent date, 9/12/2024. Ifyou determine that any or all of the records I’m looking to obtain willincur acharge, Iask you tonote whether itis necessary in this case to charge for records that are requested. Ialso ask for signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely ifyou determine that any or alloftheinformation is tobe charged for. Ifthere are any charges for the records I’mlooking toobtain, Iask forthat tobe communicated tome before you secure thedocuments I’mrequesting. Furthermore, ifthere are any charges for the records I’m looking toobtain, Iask forthose charges tobe waived. I ask that these records be given to me as digital files emailed to me at Ifyou determine that any or all of the information qualifies foranexemption from disclosure, Iask youto note whether, asisnormally thecase under theAct, theexemption isdiscretionary, and ifsowhether itis necessary inthis case to exercise your discretion towithhold theinformation. Ifyoudetermine that some butnotalloftheinformation isexempt from disclosure andthat youintend to withhold it, Iask that you redact itfor thetime being and make therest available asrequested. Inany event, please provide asigned notification citing thelegal authorities onwhich you relyifyou determine thatany or allof theinformation isexempt and willnot bedisclosed. Please contact mewith any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Monday, September 23, 2024 10:10 AM To:Kathie Walker Cc:CityClerk; City_Attorney Subject:Records Request UPDATE 09/23/2024 - PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence/records 11/8/23 - present Attachments:PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence_records 11_8_23 - present.pdf Kathie Walker, Staff has determined that there are additional records for your request and anticipate those records to be produced to you by Thursday, October 3, 2024. 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 To:CityClerk Subject:Records request under the CPRA This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Please provide the following information according tothe CPRA: Copies ofallAdvisory Letters, Notices ofViolation and/orany other correspondence whether electronic orwritten, related tosuspected orconfirmed illegal fraternity operations issued bythe City ofSanLuis Obispo from 11/8/2023 tothepresent date, 9/12/2024. Allemail conversations, notes, and any other written documentation between John Mezzapesa and Elizabeth Aiello-Copolla withthe words "fraternity" "Greek" "unpermitted" "illegal" "municipal code" from 11/8/2023 tothepresent date, 9/12/2024. Ifyou determine that any or all of the records I’m looking to obtain willincur acharge, Iask you tonote whether itis necessary in this case to charge for records that are requested. Ialso ask for signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely ifyou determine that any or alloftheinformation is tobe charged for. Ifthere are any charges for the records I’mlooking toobtain, Iask forthat tobe communicated tome before you secure thedocuments I’mrequesting. Furthermore, ifthere are any charges for the records I’m looking toobtain, Iask forthose charges tobe waived. I ask that these records be given to me as digital files emailed to me at Ifyou determine that any or all of the information qualifies foranexemption from disclosure, Iask youto note whether, asisnormally thecase under theAct, theexemption isdiscretionary, and ifsowhether itis necessary inthis case to exercise your discretion towithhold theinformation. Ifyoudetermine that some butnotalloftheinformation isexempt from disclosure andthat youintend to withhold it, Iask that you redact itfor thetime being and make therest available asrequested. Inany event, please provide asigned notification citing thelegal authorities onwhich you relyifyou determine thatany or allof theinformation isexempt and willnot bedisclosed. Please contact mewith any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, September 24, 2024 2:44 PM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Records Request Response - PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence/records 11/8/23 - present Kathie Walker, I have reached out to staff regarding the addresses you mention below and will provide an update soon. 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: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 12:59 PM To: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Records Request Response - PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence/records 11/8/23 - present This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. I believe information is missing for the addresses 496 Kentucky and 1350 Stafford which are illegal fraternity houses for Theta Chi at Cal Poly. Please provide the information sent to those addresses. I will continue to review the information provided. Thank you, Kathie Walker On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 5:02 PM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote: Kathie Walker, 2 The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) received your request pursuant to the California Public Records Act delivered via email on September 12, 2024. Today’s production will complete our processing of the responsive documents and close the request.  PRR24265 Walker CDD Files Please note, the Community Development Department lost copies of some of the notices sent out. All the letters sent out are listed in the spreadsheet and most copies are included in this production. Please be advised that every effort has been made to search for all records which may fall within the scope of your records request, and, as such, we believe our search is quite thorough. However, if you have knowledge of a specific document which has not been provided in response to your request, please notify us, and we will be happy to provide the document(s) to you unless, of course, it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to California Government Code §7921.000 et seq. 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 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Tuesday, September 24, 2024 12:59 PM To:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Subject:Re: Records Request Response - PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence/records 11/8/23 - present This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. I believe information is missing for the addresses 496 Kentucky and 1350 Stafford which are illegal fraternity houses for Theta Chi at Cal Poly. Please provide the information sent to those addresses. I will continue to review the information provided. Thank you, Kathie Walker On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 5:02 PM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote: Kathie Walker, The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) received your request pursuant to the California Public Records Act delivered via email on September 12, 2024. Today’s production will complete our processing of the responsive documents and close the request.  PRR24265 Walker CDD Files Please note, the Community Development Department lost copies of some of the notices sent out. All the letters sent out are listed in the spreadsheet and most copies are included in this production. Please be advised that every effort has been made to search for all records which may fall within the scope of your records request, and, as such, we believe our search is quite thorough. However, if you have knowledge of a specific document which has not been provided in response to your request, please notify us, and we will be happy to provide the document(s) to you unless, of course, it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to California Government Code §7921.000 et seq. Best, 2 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 To:CityClerk Subject:Records request under the CPRA This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Please provide the following information according tothe CPRA: Copies ofallAdvisory Letters, Notices ofViolation and/orany other correspondence whether electronic orwritten, related tosuspected orconfirmed illegal fraternity operations issued bythe City ofSanLuis Obispo from 11/8/2023 tothepresent date, 9/12/2024. Allemail conversations, notes, and any other written documentation between John Mezzapesa and Elizabeth Aiello-Copolla withthe words "fraternity" "Greek" "unpermitted" "illegal" "municipal code" from 11/8/2023 tothepresent date, 9/12/2024. Ifyou determine that any or all of the records I’m looking to obtain willincur acharge, Iask you tonote whether itis necessary in this case to charge for records that are requested. Ialso ask for signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely ifyou determine that any or alloftheinformation is tobe charged for. Ifthere are any charges for the records I’mlooking toobtain, Iask forthat tobe communicated tome before you secure thedocuments I’mrequesting. Furthermore, ifthere are any charges for the records I’m looking toobtain, Iask forthose charges tobe waived. I ask that these records be given to me as digital files emailed to me at Ifyou determine that any or all of the information qualifies foranexemption from disclosure, Iask youto note whether, asisnormally thecase under theAct, theexemption isdiscretionary, and ifsowhether itis necessary inthis case to exercise your discretion towithhold theinformation. Ifyoudetermine that some butnotalloftheinformation isexempt from disclosure andthat youintend to withhold it, Iask that you redact itfor thetime being and make therest available asrequested. Inany event, please provide asigned notification citing thelegal authorities onwhich you relyifyou determine thatany or allof theinformation isexempt and willnot bedisclosed. Please contact mewith any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Wednesday, September 25, 2024 9:04 AM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Records Request Response - PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence/records 11/8/23 - present Attachments:PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence_records 11_8_23 - present.pdf; 496 Kentucky NOV.pdf Kathie Walker, The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) received your request pursuant to the California Public Records Act delivered via email on September 12, 2024. Today’s production will complete our processing of the responsive documents and close the request. - 496 Kentucky NOV.pdf Please note, this notice covers the entire parcel which includes 496 Kentucky Street and 1350 Stafford Street. Please be advised that every effort has been made to search for all records which may fall within the scope of your records request, and, as such, we believe our search is quite thorough. However, if you have knowledge of a specific document which has not been provided in response to your request, please notify us, and we will be happy to provide the document(s) to you unless, of course, it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to California Government Code §7921.000 et seq. 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: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 2:44 PM To: kathie walker < > Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Records Request Response - PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence/records 11/8/23 - present Kathie Walker, I have reached out to staff regarding the addresses you mention below and will provide an update soon. Best, 2 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: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 12:59 PM To: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Records Request Response - PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence/records 11/8/23 - present This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. I believe information is missing for the addresses 496 Kentucky and 1350 Stafford which are illegal fraternity houses for Theta Chi at Cal Poly. Please provide the information sent to those addresses. I will continue to review the information provided. Thank you, Kathie Walker On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 5:02 PM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote: Kathie Walker, The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) received your request pursuant to the California Public Records Act delivered via email on September 12, 2024. Today’s production will complete our processing of the responsive documents and close the request.  PRR24265 Walker CDD Files Please note, the Community Development Department lost copies of some of the notices sent out. All the letters sent out are listed in the spreadsheet and most copies are included in this production. 3 Please be advised that every effort has been made to search for all records which may fall within the scope of your records request, and, as such, we believe our search is quite thorough. However, if you have knowledge of a specific document which has not been provided in response to your request, please notify us, and we will be happy to provide the document(s) to you unless, of course, it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to California Government Code §7921.000 et seq. 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 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Friday, September 27, 2024 9:46 PM To:McDonald, Whitney; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Cc:Mezzapesa, John; Sheats, Steven; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Stewjenkins Info; Victoria Wood; Karen Adler; Steven Walker; E-mail Council Website; Stewart, Erica A; Pease, Andy; Francis, Emily; Shoresman, Michelle; Marx, Jan Subject:Re: Fraternity operations in neighborhoods and CPRA response This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Correction: The Notice of Violation for 1327 E. Foothill was not lost by the CDD but was missing a date, so should not be included in the missing documents listed. The Advisory Letters that were reportedly lost by the Community Development Department (listed on spreadsheet but not included in letters produced) are listed below. My main concern is Kappa Sigma at 281 Hathway, which is the main Chapter house for Kappa Sigma and hosted many documented fraternity events that can be heard from more than a block away. There is ample documentation that 281 Hathway is an active fraternity house, known by SLOPD, and should have been issued a Notice of Violation. Phi Gamma Delta at 1254 Bond is also a problem and is the main Chapter house for the fraternity, listed in Cal Poly's AB 524 report and shown in the documentation from social media posts. 1. Phi Kappa Psi 1740 Fredericks St 2. Phi Kappa Psi 346 Grand Ave 3. Sigma Nu 1621 McCollum St 4. Theta Chi 1661 McCollum St 5. Phi Kappa Psi 237 Albert Dr 6. Phi Gamma Delta 385 Chaplin Ln 7. Kappa Sigma 108 Crandall Wy 8. Theta Chi 1238 E. Foothill Blvd 9. Phi Gamma Delta 1254 Bond St *main Chapter house for the fraternity 10. Theta Chi 191 Kentucky St 11. Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway Ave *main Chapter house for the fraternity 12. Unknown Fraternity 525 El Camino Real 13. Unknown Fraternity 1130 Olive St 14. Unknown Fraternity 618 Felton Wy 15. Used as Event Venue 1010 Paseo DeCaballo Also, I am concerned about the other fraternity houses that were overlooked by Code Enforcement but are listed in Cal Poly's AB 524 Report, and which have hosted rush events and other documented fraternity events. The documentation is attached to my first email. Some of these properties are the main Chapter houses for their fraternity and operate as full-fledged fraternities, as you might imagine that to be. Hopefully, Community Development will solve this ongoing problem. Thank you. -Kathie 2 On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 2:55 PM kathie walker < > wrote: Dear Whitney and Timmi, Nearly a year ago, on 11/8/2023, I met with Timmi Tway and John Mezzapesa to solve the problem of over 60 illegal fraternity houses that have overtaken our neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. I documented each of the illegal fraternity houses in a report provided during our meeting. Recently, I asked the City for the records sent to the illegal fraternity operations, and the documents, including a spreadsheet of addresses, were sent to me on Monday, 9/22/2024. According to the City, many of the letters sent to the property owners for illegal fraternities were lost by the Community Development Department so were unable to be produced. I am not sure how the City is able to track the illegal operations or follow-up since they've lost the letters. Also, some of the Notices of Violation did not contain a date, therefore the reference to "5 days from this notice" is difficult to enforce because there is no date on the notices. One of the letters also contained the incorrect address because numbers were transposed from 1740 (correct address) to 1704 (address cited in the letter). Finally, the City did not send Notices of Violation or Advisory Letters to many documented fraternities. I have included that information in the document attached to this email. John Mezzapesa has been amazing in working with me. I feel he is overburdened by the amount of work he has to handle and do not blame him for the mistakes that have been made. However, it is apparent that Code Enforcement needs more staff members to handle the problem, and likely others related to substandard housing. I encourage the City Council to keep this need in mind because our neighborhoods are unfairly burdened by the dozens of illegal fraternity houses in residential neighborhoods and it is not right. Aside from the illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood, no one is monitoring the conditional use permits for existing fraternity operations. After a year of constant parties and disruptive noise starting in 2022, and after they were issued SIX citations including two unruly gatherings within 10 months, my husband filed a complaint against a fraternity's CUP at 280 California Blvd in February. The CUP states that the use permit will be reviewed if a written complaint is made by a resident. I just wanted to let you know that nothing was done. Months went by, the fraternity continued to have loud parties in violation of their CUP and were issued another FIVE citations. My husband and I filed a second complaint against the fraternity. Still, no action has been taken! What is the point of a conditional use permit if the terms of the conditions are not followed? Please follow up with the properties identified in the document attached to this email and let me know what action is being taken regarding the complaints filed against the CUP at 280 California Blvd. Thank you. -Kathie 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Friday, September 27, 2024 2:56 PM To:McDonald, Whitney; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Cc:Mezzapesa, John; Sheats, Steven; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Stewjenkins Info; Victoria Wood; Karen Adler; Steven Walker; E-mail Council Website; Stewart, Erica A; Pease, Andy; Francis, Emily; Shoresman, Michelle; Marx, Jan Subject:Fraternity operations in neighborhoods and CPRA response Attachments:CDD fraternity action.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Whitney and Timmi, Nearly a year ago, on 11/8/2023, I met with Timmi Tway and John Mezzapesa to solve the problem of over 60 illegal fraternity houses that have overtaken our neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. I documented each of the illegal fraternity houses in a report provided during our meeting. Recently, I asked the City for the records sent to the illegal fraternity operations, and the documents, including a spreadsheet of addresses, were sent to me on Monday, 9/22/2024. According to the City, many of the letters sent to the property owners for illegal fraternities were lost by the Community Development Department so were unable to be produced. I am not sure how the City is able to track the illegal operations or follow-up since they've lost the letters. Also, some of the Notices of Violation did not contain a date, therefore the reference to "5 days from this notice" is difficult to enforce because there is no date on the notices. One of the letters also contained the incorrect address because numbers were transposed from 1740 (correct address) to 1704 (address cited in the letter). Finally, the City did not send Notices of Violation or Advisory Letters to many documented fraternities. I have included that information in the document attached to this email. John Mezzapesa has been amazing in working with me. I feel he is overburdened by the amount of work he has to handle and do not blame him for the mistakes that have been made. However, it is apparent that Code Enforcement needs more staff members to handle the problem, and likely others related to substandard housing. I encourage the City Council to keep this need in mind because our neighborhoods are unfairly burdened by the dozens of illegal fraternity houses in residential neighborhoods and it is not right. Aside from the illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood, no one is monitoring the conditional use permits for existing fraternity operations. After a year of constant parties and disruptive noise starting in 2022, and after they were issued SIX citations including two unruly gatherings within 10 months, my husband filed a complaint against a fraternity's CUP at 280 California Blvd in February. The CUP states that the use permit will be reviewed if a written complaint is made by a resident. I just wanted to let you know that nothing was done. Months went by, the fraternity continued to have loud parties in violation of their CUP and were issued another FIVE citations. My husband and I filed a second complaint against the fraternity. Still, no action has been taken! What is the point of a conditional use permit if the terms of the conditions are not followed? 2 Please follow up with the properties identified in the document attached to this email and let me know what action is being taken regarding the complaints filed against the CUP at 280 California Blvd. Thank you. -Kathie Spreadsheet from Community Development with addresses that received Notices of Violation (NOV) and Advisory Letters (AL) for illegal fraternity operations……………………………...... 2 Documented illegal fraternity houses in AB 524 report and/or social media and in my report provided to Community Development on 11/8/2023 not included in City’s spreadsheet. (Some are the main Chapter houses for the fraternity)……………………………………………………… 3 Beta Theta Pi 1220 Fredericks Street………………………………………………………………………. 4 Delta Upsilon 281 Albert Drive…………………………………………….…………………………………. 5 - 6 Delta Upsilon 1555 Slack……………………….……………………………………………………………… 7 Delta Upsilon 388 Chaplin Lane…………………………………………………………………………….. 8 – 9 Lambda Chi Alpha 253 Albert Drive……………………………………………………………………………….. 10 Phi Delta Theta 470 Grand Ave…………………………………………………………………………………. 11 Phi Gamma Delta 1256 Bond St ………………………………………………………………….………………. 12 Phi Kappa Psi 2061 Hope Street………………………………………………………………….…………. 13 Phi Kappa Psi 1271, 1273 & 1275 Stafford Street ………………………………………….….………. 14 Phi Sigma Kappa 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue (a.k.a “the Pink House”) …………………………….. 15-17 Phi Sigma Kappa 1908 Loomis……………………………………………………………………………………. 18 Pi Kappa Phi 66 Rafael Wy …………………………………………………………………………..………. 19 Pi Kappa Phi 447 N. Chorro……………………………………………………………………….…………. 20 Sigma Nu 290 Chaplin Lane……………………………………….……………………………….…… 21 Theta Chi 1350 Stafford Street…………………………………………………………………………. 22 Theta Chi 410 Grand Avenue………………………………………………………………………...... 23 Zeta Beta Tau 654 Graves…………………………………………………………………………………….. 24 Zeta Beta Tau 244 Albert Drive a.k.a. “The Zoo” ………………………………………………………………… 25-26 Notice of Violation for 1525 Slack Street – Sigma Pi NO DATE on Notice of Violation…………….. 27 Notice of Violation for 1327 E. Foothill – Beta Theta Pi NO DATE on Notice of Violation………… 28 Advisory Letter for 1740 Fredericks St – Phi Kappa Psi WRONG ADDRESS in Letter……........ 29 List of 17 Notices of Violation and Advisory Letters that were “lost” by the City therefore, were not included in responsive documents for my public records request…………… 30 Table of Contents 1 Theta Chi 1441 Slack St Delta Upsilon 1700 Fredericks St Lambda Chi Alpha 171 Orange Dr Theta Chi 1820 Hope St Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays St Lambda Chi Alpha 12 Hathway Ave Alpha Sigma Phi 1218 Bond St Phi Gamma Delta 1229 Fredericks St Sigma Pi 124 Stenner St Lambda Chi Alpha 1243 Monte Vista Pl Sigma Pi 1525 Slack St Sigma Nu 250 Grand Ave Lambda Chi Alpha 278 Albert Dr Alpha Sigma Phi 299 Albert Dr Sigma Nu 301 Hathway Ave Alpha Epsilon Pi 331 Hathway Ave Beta Theta Pi 1327 E. Foothill Blvd Kappa Sigma 1861 Hope St Theta Chi 2149 Santa Ynez Ave Phi Kappa Psi 1740 Fredericks St Zeta Beta Tau 2044 Loomis St ? 212 Albert Dr ? 1744 McCollum St Zeta Beta Tau 1841 Slack St Kappa Sigma 1990 McCollum St 311 E. Foothill Blvd Kappa Sigma 322 Hathway Ave Phi Kappa Psi 346 Grand Ave Kappa Sigma 526 Kentucky St “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ Used as Event Venue 1010 Paseo De Caballo Sigma Nu 1621 McCollum St Theta Chi 1661 McCollum St Phi Kappa Psi 237 Albert Dr Phi Gamma Delta 385 Chaplin Ln ? 525 El Camino Real ? 1130 Olive St Kappa Sigma 1142 Montalban St 1725 Santa Barbara Ave Zeta Beta Tau 1928 Garfield St typo on AB524rpt (1238) 238 Foothill Blvd Beta Theta Pi 556 Hathway Ave Zeta Beta Tau 658 Graves Ave Kappa Sigma 108 Crandall Wy Theta Chi 1238 E. Foothill Blvd Lambda Chi Alpha 1241 Monte Vista Pl Phi Gamma Delta 1254 Bond St Theta Chi 191 Kentucky St Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway ? 618 Felton Wy 2 Notices of Violation (NOV) and Advisory Letters (AL) not included in City’s spreadsheet. Documented in AB 524 report and/or social media and in my report provided on 11/8/2023. Some are the main Chapter houses for the fraternity. Not sure how they were missed. Beta Theta Pi 1220 Fredericks Street (see attachment/documentation) Delta Upsilon 281Albert Drive (see attachment/documentation) 388 Chaplin Lane (see attachment/documentation) 1555 Slack St (see attachment/documentation) Lambda Chi Alpha 253 Albert Drive (see attachment/documentation) 178 Chaplin Lane Phi Delta Theta 470 Grand Ave (see attachment/documentation) 260 Chaplin Lane* (not listed on City’s spreadsheet but AL sent) 251 Highland Dr (not on City’s spreadsheet but AL sent) 568 Ellen Way (not on City’s spreadsheet but AL sent) Phi Gamma Delta 1256 Bond St* not included (separate address from 1254 Bond) Also 1254 Bond received AL but this is the fraternity’s main Chapter house (see attachment/documentation) Phi Kappa Psi 2061 Hope St (see attachment/documentation) 1271, 1273 & 1275 Stafford (see attachment/documentation) Phi Sigma Kappa 348 & 350 Hathway Ave* (see attachment/documentation) 1908 Loomis St (see attachment/documentation) Pi Kappa Phi 447 N. Chorro 66 Rafael Way**(see attachment/documentation) Sigma Nu 290 Chaplin Lane (see attachment/documentation) Theta Chi 496 Kentucky St (see attachment/documentation) 1350 Stafford St (see attachment/documentation) 410 Grand Ave Zeta Beta Tau 654 Graves* Shown as main Chapter house on AB 524 Report see attachment/documentation) 244 Albert Drive (see attachment/documentation) *Property is the main Chapter house for the fraternity **Property is the main Chapter house for the fraternity within the City limits 3 Beta Theta Pi 1220 Fredericks Street Beta Theta Pi’s AB 524 report shows event at 1220 Fredericks St Rush events on Fredericks St posted on Beta Theta Pi’s Instagram account show an event at 1220 Fredericks St on 10/11/2023 during 2023-2024 academic year See: https://www.instagram.com/beta_calpoly/ Rush event at 1220 Fredericks St 10/12/2023 4 Delta Upsilon 281 Albert Drive Delta Upsilon listed multiple events at 281 Albert Drive in their AB 524 report Delta Upsilon continued to host fraternity events at 281 Albert Drive during the 2023-2024 year 5 Delta Upsilon 281 Albert Drive Delta Upsilon also listed a rush event at 281 Albert Drive during fall and winter rush 2023 During 2023-2024 academic year 6 Delta Upsilon 1555 Slack Delta Upsilon held a fraternity-related event at 1555 Slack St 5/12/2024 posted on Instagram Delta Upsilon listed events at 1555 Slack St in their AB 524 report 7 Delta Upsilon 388 Chaplin Lane Delta Upsilon had events listed at 388 Chaplin in their AB 524 report Delta Upsilon had a rush event at 388 Chaplin, posted on their Instagram page 8 Delta Upsilon 388 Chaplin Lane Delta Upsilon had another rush event at 388 Chaplin, posted on their Instagram page Delta Upsilon had an event at 388 Chaplin on 2/17/2024 during 2023-2024 academic year posted on their Instagram page 9 Lambda Chi Alpha 253 Albert Drive Lambda Chi Alpha rush event at 253 Albert Dr on 10/12/2023 posted on their Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/lambdachi_calpoly/ Lambda Chi Alpha event advertised at 253 Albert Dr on 3/10/2024 10 Phi Delta Theta 470 Grand Ave A video posted on Phi Delta Theta’s Instagram page shows the fraternity brothers “getting ready for rush” at the house at 470 Grand Ave. Another post shows the fraternity guys on the roof and yard in the house at 470 Grand Ave With the caption “RUSH PHI DELT” 470 A Grand Ave 11 Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI) 1256 Bond St Phi Gamma Delta had events at 1256 Bond St on their AB 524 report The main Chapter house for Phi Gamma Delta “FIJI” is the duplex at 1254 & 1256 Bond St. The fraternity’s logo is a drawing of the house at 1254 /1256 Bond. This is their main Chapter facility in an R-1 zone. FIJI held their annual Dad’s weekend event at 1256 Bond St (and 1254 Bond St) 3/2-3/3/2024 12 Phi Kappa Psi 2061 Hope Street Phi Kappa Psi rush at 2061 Hope St 10/12/2023 Phi Kappa Psi held rush event at 2061 Hope St (posted 10/9/2023) 13 Phi Kappa Psi 1271, 1273 & 1275 Stafford Street Phi Kappa Psi fraternity event in courtyard of the three houses This is a new fraternity compound for Phi Kappa Psi established at the beginning of 2023-2024 academic year 14 Phi Sigma Kappa 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue (“the Pink House”) Phi Sigma Kappa Winder Rush Schedule Lists 348 Hathway Ave Video on Phi Sigma Kappa’s Instagram page identifies 348 Hathway Ave as the main Chapter house Phi Sigma Kappa’s rush events Winter 2024 identifies 348 Hathway Ave Phi Sigma Kappa’s rush promotion photo shows party in backyard of 348 Hathway Ave 15 Phi Sigma Kappa 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue (“the Pink House”) Phi Sigma Kappa’s rush events Fall 2023 identifies 348 Hathway Ave Phi Sigma Kappa’s spring“dayge” (daytime rager) held at 348 Hathway May 2024 Phi Sigma Kappa’s “philanthropy” event painting fences with other fraternities and sororities Event posted on their Instagram page, June 2024 16 Phi Sigma Kappa 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue (“the Pink House”) Phi Sigma Kappa’s “ back house at 350 Hathway Ave It is on the same parcel but recognized as separate address for citations, so they are divided between 348 and 350 Hathway Phi Sigma Kappa’s “ back house at 350 Hathway Ave listed in AB 524 Report 17 Phi Sigma Kappa 1908 Loomis Street Phi Sigma Kappa’s “ back house at 1908 Loomis listed in AB 524 Report Video on Phi Sigma Kappa’s Instagram page identifies 1908 Loomis St as the satellite house Rush event at 1908 Loomis 10/12/2023 18 Pi Kappa Phi 66 Rafael Way 19 Pi Kappa Phi 447 N. Chorro Pi Kappa Phi winter rush 2024 Rush event at 447 N. Chorro 10/11/2023 20 Sigma Nu 290 Chaplin Lane Fraternity members in front of their house at 290 Chaplin Lane This fraternity house hosted several events with sororities, during the 2023-2024 academic year, including a party with over 100 people on 10/27/2023 The party will likely be listed on Cal Poly’s AB 524 report posted 10/1/2024 21 Theta Chi 1350 Stafford Street Theta Chi rush event posted on Instagram at 1350 Stafford 10/11/2023 Photo of Theta Chi Board Members at 1350 Stafford The house at 1350 Stafford became a fraternity in academic year 2023 – 2024 It has held MANY fraternity parties, hosting sororities, and has been extremely disruptive in the neighborhood. Most parties were cleared by SNAP as ‘negative violation’ despite being heard from a block away 22 Theta Chi 410 Grand Avenue Screenshot of Theta Chi at 410 Grand from Theta Chi’s rush promotion video posted on Instagram. This was a new fraternity house in 2023 – 2023 academic year and hosted many events and parties that would appear on Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report to be posted on 10/1/2024 23 Zeta Beta Tau 654 Graves The main Chapter house for Zeta Beta Tau is one of the few fraternity houses identified in Cal Poly’s AB 524 report as “Affiliated Chapter Houses” at 654 Graves Ave. This is the main Chapter facility for Zeta Beta Tau. 654 Graves is also listed multiple times in the “sanctioned events” for the fraternity in the AB 524 report. 24 Zeta Beta Tau 244 Albert Drive a.k.a. “The Zoo” Zeta Beta Tau held “sanctioned events” at 244 Albert Drive including a St. Fratty’s Day event that was shut down by SLOPD with a Report filed by the officer re: the event. A photo of the Backyard at 244 Albert Dr is used by Zeta Beta Tau to recruit new members (below) 25 Zeta Beta Tau 244 Albert Drive 244 Albert Drive, referred to as “the Zoo” had an event with a live band on January 12, 2024, and a music video for the band was filmed during the concert in the backyard. The band posted clips from the concert at 244 Albert on their Instagram page (below) 26 No Date on Notice of Violation 1525 Slack Street – Sigma Pi 27 No Date on Notice of Violation 1327 E. Foothill Blvd – Beta Theta Pi 28 Wrong address cited in letter (should be 1740 not 1704) 1740 Fredericks Street – Phi Kappa Psi 29 The City’s spreadsheet (page 2) shows Notices of Violation and Advisory Letters were sent to the following addresses, but the City claims the letters were “lost” by the Community Development Department. How will the City have a record of the violation and/or follow-up since the letters are lost? Lost Notice of Violation: 1. Beta Theta Pi 1327 E. Foothill Blvd *main Chapter house for the fraternity Lost Advisory Letters: 2. Kappa Sigma 1861 Hope St3. Phi Kappa Psi 1740 Fredericks St4. Phi Kappa Psi 346 Grand Ave5. Sigma Nu 1621 McCollum St6. Theta Chi 1661 McCollum St7. Phi Kappa Psi 237 Albert Dr8. Phi Gamma Delta 385 Chaplin Ln9.Kappa Sigma 108 Crandall Wy10. Theta Chi 1238 E. Foothill Blvd11. Phi Gamma Delta 1254 Bond St12. Theta Chi 191 Kentucky St13. Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway Ave *main Chapter house for the fraternity14. Unknown Fraternity 525 El Camino Real15. Unknown Fraternity 1130 Olive St16. Unknown Fraternity 618 Felton Wy17. Used as Event Venue 1010 Paseo DeCaballo 30 1 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Saturday, September 28, 2024 8:24 AM To:kathie walker Cc:Mezzapesa, John; Sheats, Steven; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Corey, Tyler; Stewjenkins Info; Victoria Wood; Karen Adler; Steven Walker; Loew, Michael; McDonald, Whitney Subject:RE: Fraternity operations in neighborhoods and CPRA response BCC:CC Hi Kathie, Thank you for the email and the additional information. I apologize for my weekend email, but I am headed to a conference for a few days and wanted to get you a response as I know this is an in important issue. The Community Development Department remains committed to addressing violations that are occurring through our Code Enforcement program. I appreciate the time you have spent with both John and I to help us understand the issue and provide information that can be used in pursuing compliance. Since our meetings we have taken a number of steps, including multiple meetings with Cal Poly leadership as well as students in the Greek system to educate all parties about the municipal code regulations, and specific discussions about Cal Poly’s online reporting. We also, as you noted below, began a larger effort to gain compliance through our normal code enforcement process. I will be working with the Code Enforcement team to ensure that our record keeping for this process meets our standards, but please be assured that we track each correspondence that is sent and actions taken on addresses related to code compliance. We will continue to pursue compliance both through our attempts to connect with Cal Poly and students and educate, as well as through the traditional code enforcement processes. As we have discussed before, this can be a difficult issue to address through code enforcement for a number of reasons, and code enforcement does need to prioritize their work given their resources and the amount and type of complaints that are received from the public (we have received a record number of code enforcement complaints in recent months). I always appreciate your input as to how you think we can improve. Regarding the CUP at 280 California Boulevard, we have been working on this issue since we received the written complaint. Upon receipt of the complaint, we worked to verify what was reported to us, and began a process to inform the fraternity of their violations and responsibilities under the CUP (this included issuing letters and notices of violation). I requested that the fraternity contact the Department and meet with us so that we could discuss their violations and next steps. This past Thursday (September 26) Code Enforcement staff and I met with the student leadership of the fraternity that occupies 280 California to talk about the requirements of the CUP, let them know that they were in violation of their permit and that their actions were disruptive to the neighborhood, and inform them that the CUP would be presented to the Planning Commission for review. I was hoping to update you this upcoming week with this development once I had a more solid Planning Commission date for you. At this time, it is looking like it will likely be in November or early December, but I will let you know when we have a confirmed date. I hope this information is helpful and I am happy to meet with you to discuss any of this further. I realize this is an impactful, complex issue, and we will continue to work to address it through both education and enforcement. Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development 2 Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 9:46 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Sheats, Steven <ssheats@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < ; Stewjenkins Info < ; Victoria Wood < ; Karen Adler < ; Steven Walker < >; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Fraternity operations in neighborhoods and CPRA response This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Correction: The Notice of Violation for 1327 E. Foothill was not lost by the CDD but was missing a date, so should not be included in the missing documents listed. The Advisory Letters that were reportedly lost by the Community Development Department (listed on spreadsheet but not included in letters produced) are listed below. My main concern is Kappa Sigma at 281 Hathway, which is the main Chapter house for Kappa Sigma and hosted many documented fraternity events that can be heard from more than a block away. There is ample documentation that 281 Hathway is an active fraternity house, known by SLOPD, and should have been issued a Notice of Violation. Phi Gamma Delta at 1254 Bond is also a problem and is the main Chapter house for the fraternity, listed in Cal Poly's AB 524 report and shown in the documentation from social media posts. 1. Phi Kappa Psi 1740 Fredericks St 2. Phi Kappa Psi 346 Grand Ave 3. Sigma Nu 1621 McCollum St 4. Theta Chi 1661 McCollum St 5. Phi Kappa Psi 237 Albert Dr 6. Phi Gamma Delta 385 Chaplin Ln 7. Kappa Sigma 108 Crandall Wy 8. Theta Chi 1238 E. Foothill Blvd 9. Phi Gamma Delta 1254 Bond St *main Chapter house for the fraternity 10. Theta Chi 191 Kentucky St 11. Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway Ave *main Chapter house for the fraternity 12. Unknown Fraternity 525 El Camino Real 3 13. Unknown Fraternity 1130 Olive St 14. Unknown Fraternity 618 Felton Wy 15. Used as Event Venue 1010 Paseo DeCaballo Also, I am concerned about the other fraternity houses that were overlooked by Code Enforcement but are listed in Cal Poly's AB 524 Report, and which have hosted rush events and other documented fraternity events. The documentation is attached to my first email. Some of these properties are the main Chapter houses for their fraternity and operate as full-fledged fraternities, as you might imagine that to be. Hopefully, Community Development will solve this ongoing problem. Thank you. -Kathie On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 2:55 PM kathie walker < > wrote: Dear Whitney and Timmi, Nearly a year ago, on 11/8/2023, I met with Timmi Tway and John Mezzapesa to solve the problem of over 60 illegal fraternity houses that have overtaken our neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. I documented each of the illegal fraternity houses in a report provided during our meeting. Recently, I asked the City for the records sent to the illegal fraternity operations, and the documents, including a spreadsheet of addresses, were sent to me on Monday, 9/22/2024. According to the City, many of the letters sent to the property owners for illegal fraternities were lost by the Community Development Department so were unable to be produced. I am not sure how the City is able to track the illegal operations or follow-up since they've lost the letters. Also, some of the Notices of Violation did not contain a date, therefore the reference to "5 days from this notice" is difficult to enforce because there is no date on the notices. One of the letters also contained the incorrect address because numbers were transposed from 1740 (correct address) to 1704 (address cited in the letter). Finally, the City did not send Notices of Violation or Advisory Letters to many documented fraternities. I have included that information in the document attached to this email. John Mezzapesa has been amazing in working with me. I feel he is overburdened by the amount of work he has to handle and do not blame him for the mistakes that have been made. However, it is apparent that Code Enforcement needs more staff members to handle the problem, and likely others related to substandard housing. I encourage the City Council to keep this need in mind because our neighborhoods are unfairly burdened by the dozens of illegal fraternity houses in residential neighborhoods and it is not right. Aside from the illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood, no one is monitoring the conditional use permits for existing fraternity operations. After a year of constant parties and disruptive noise starting in 2022, and after they were issued SIX citations including two unruly gatherings within 10 months, my husband filed a complaint against a fraternity's CUP at 280 California Blvd in February. The CUP states that the use permit will be reviewed if a written complaint is made by a resident. I just wanted to let you know that nothing was done. Months went by, the fraternity continued to have loud parties in violation of their CUP and were issued another FIVE citations. My husband and I filed a second complaint against the fraternity. Still, no action has been taken! What is the point of a conditional use permit if the terms of the conditions are not followed? 4 Please follow up with the properties identified in the document attached to this email and let me know what action is being taken regarding the complaints filed against the CUP at 280 California Blvd. Thank you. -Kathie 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Monday, October 7, 2024 12:24 AM To:E-mail Council Website; McDonald, Whitney; Hermann, Greg; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John Cc:Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross; Carolyn Smith; Stewjenkins Info; Victoria Wood; Bulbul Rajagopal Subject:Fraternity rush events at Illegal fraternity houses this weekend This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. San Luis Obispo City Leaders and Representatives, Here we go again. Just like last year, fraternity rush events happened at illegal fraternity houses in SLO's neighborhoods this past weekend. The addresses of the events are posted below. Cal Poly Greek life staff has the list of each event address with the corresponding fraternity and can confirm their locations if they choose to cooperate with the City. The fraternities also passed out cards at a Cal Poly event on Thursday 10/3/2024 with the address locations of each event. Additionally, I have documentation of the events. Many of these addresses were already identified and documented as fraternity operations a year ago. Some are the main chapter houses for the fraternities. The addresses were listed in Cal Poly's AB 524 Report posted on 10/1/2023 and documented in the report, with social media posts and photos, given to Timmi Tway and John Mezzapesa during a meeting on 11/8/2023. Most of these addresses also have a history of noise complaints to SLOPD because they have been fraternity houses for a while. There are also some new fraternity houses this year, including two "main satellite" fraternity houses on our street in an R-1 zone. Friday 10/4/2024: 1684 Mill Street (Delta Sigma Phi) 281 Albert Drive (Delta Upsilon) 248-250 Grand Ave (Theta Chi) 281 Hathway Ave (Kappa Sigma) 348 Hathway Ave (Phi Kappa Psi) 1525 Slack St (Sigma Pi) 2090 Hays (Sigma Epsilon) 1218 Bond St (Alpha Sigma Phi) 1229 Fredericks (Phi Gamma Delta aka FIJI) 654 Graves (Zeta Beta Tau) Saturday 10/5/2024: 654 Graves (Zeta Beta Tau) 299 Albert (Alpha Sigma Pi) 12 Hathway (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1841 Slack St (Sigma Nu) 66 Rafael (Pi Kappa Phi) 1820 Hope (Theta Chi) 322 Hathway (Kappa Sigma) 1908 Loomis (Phi Sigma Kappa) 2 1276 Bond St (Phi Kappa Psi) Sunday 10/6/2024 237 Albert Dr (Phi Kappa Psi) 348 Hathway Ave (Phi Sigma Kappa) 124 Stenner (Sigma Pi) 2090 Hays (Sigma Epsilon) 171 Orange (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1646 Fredericks St (Zeta Beta Tau) 1229 Fredericks (Phi Gamma Delta aka FIJI) 1868 Loomis (Delta Upsilon) 260 Chaplin (Phi Delta Theta) 1632 Fredericks (Sigma Nu) Another wave of rush events for each fraternity is scheduled for next weekend and then huge parties with alcohol will start happening. Fraternities will begin hosting the various sororities with booming music and screaming disrupting the peace of the City's neighborhoods. The quiet enjoyment of our property will be lost. In addition to the noisy parties, loud parades of sorority members will walk through the neighborhood to attend these parties and wake people as they pass by before and after the parties. It is incredibly miserable to be surrounded by full-fledged fraternity parties Thursday through Sunday. The only way for our family to escape is for us to leave our home. That isn't right. San Luis Obispo Code Enforcement met with Cal Poly staff, including its Greek life administrators, during the last academic year. The City staff explained to Cal Poly staff that the City's laws prohibit fraternity events in our neighborhoods and that fraternity events must be at a permitted fraternity house. It is extremely disappointing that these fraternity rush events were approved by Cal Poly staff, even though they know it is a violation of the City's laws. Further, Cal Poly revised their Party Registration Policy for Greek life in September 2024. The Policy was originally drafted after Carson Starkey's death at an illegal satellite fraternity house, as part of the Deferred Recruitment Compromise, which allowed freshmen to resume pledging fraternities in the fall. In the original Policy, fraternity events were required to be held at (1) a main chapter house, (2) a registered satellite house, or (3) an approved third-party venue. The new Policy allows a fraternity to hold an event at any residence or third- party venue. This Policy was not revised until the City sent Notices of Violation or Advisory Letters to some of the identified illegal fraternity properties. Then Cal Poly indicated that it would no longer keep track of its registered satellite fraternity houses so it would not provide a list of those properties to the City, according to Code Enforcement. One of Cal Poly's attorneys, Maren Hufton, told me the same thing in response to a public records request. Still, each fraternity must register its events with Cal Poly, so there is a record of the addresses where fraternity events are held. Cal Poly staff has approved these 'sanctioned events' at these addresses, even though they understand it is against the City's laws for Cal Poly's fraternities to hold these events in our neighborhoods and that it is detrimental to the City's residents. What is the City doing to solve this problem? What is the timeline for shutting down fraternity operations at known fraternity houses? In other words, how much longer will we have to put up with the known, documented illegal fraternity houses operating in our neighborhood? I appreciate any information you can give me. 3 Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Thursday, October 10, 2024 9:42 PM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John; Sheats, Steven; McDonald, Whitney; Francis, Emily; Pease, Andy; Stewart, Erica A; Shoresman, Michelle; Marx, Jan; E-mail Council Website Cc:Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Karen Adler; Stewjenkins Info; Sandra Rowley; Steven Walker; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre Subject:Ongoing violations of illegal fraternities not cited Attachments:Violations posted on Ask SLO app for illegal fraternity events.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. City Leaders and Elected Representatives, Our family is desperate to get the illegal fraternities out of our neighborhood and I have been submitting fraternity rush events to the AskSLO app for code enforcement. People living in Monterey Heights and the S. Tassajara/Ramona neighborhoods have also reached out about illegal fraternities that are detrimentally affecting their lives. Last year there were over 60 documented illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. This year there are more, as the problem is growing and spreading into other neighborhoods. It needs to be solved! Several days before Cal Poly's first weekend of fraternity rush (10/4 -10/6) I submitted to AskSLO (code enforcement) some rush events posted on social media. Cal Poly Greek life advised its fraternities not to post their addresses on social media despite each fraternity posting them on Instagram in previous years. Only a few out of 19 fraternities in the Interfraternity Council posted the addresses of their rush events on for Fall 2024. Cal Poly changed their rush policy this year and required potential new members to submit their information to Cal Poly's Greek Life office before the potential new members were personally provided with the addresses of the fraternities' events. I documented each fraternity rush event with video and/or photos as they were happening. Several fraternities also posted the events on their Instagram stories with the address or time, which correspond to each of their Instagram posts about the date, time, and address of the events. Unfortunately, most of my submissions to AskSLO were not cited. Code enforcement claims they "did not find any evidence that the property is being used as an illegal fraternity." I'm not sure how these events were overlooked because there were obvious fraternity rush parties at every one of the addresses reported at the exact date and time that I submitted to the City via AskSLO . How were these fraternity events missed when there were crowds of guys and large signs with Greek letters? If code enforcement staff was unable to confirm the rush events listed because of they don't work weekends, could the city have SLOPD verify them? Somehow, code enforcement needs to be able to document these illegal fraternity events that happen every weekend during the academic year so there needs to be a better system since these were not cited when they were blatantly obvious to any observer. Additionally, I was able to identify and document many other rush events at illegal fraternity houses during the weekend including the addresses listed at the bottom of this email. Most have been operating as illegal fraternity houses for a long time, and many are the main chapter houses for their fraternity in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods, where they are not allowed. Since I know the specific addresses historically tied to 2 each fraternity, the events weren't difficult to find because each fraternity posted its schedules with the date and time of each event. I knew the addresses from the previous years of their fraternity operations so it was simple to check those locations during the times listed on their rush schedule. The events also had crowds and Greek signage/booths in front of their houses. I've attached documentation to show that the fraternities I submitted to Ask SLO hosted rush events at illegal fraternity houses. Please use this information to reconsider the violations I previously submitted to code enforcement via Ask SLO. If you need the videos, I will provide them. I will follow up with more documentation for rush events at the other addresses listed below that have not yet been submitted to AskSLO. This weekend is the final weekend of rush (10/11 - 10/13) and Monday (10/14) is "bid night" so there will be LARGE parties at all the fraternities. Then it will be a free-for-all every weekend until winter break, and start again from the new year until summer. The addresses of events that held rush events are below and SLOPD should be aware that these properties are operating as illegal fraternity houses. Each of the properties will likely hold events this weekend. The "main chapter houses" will probably host their bid night events on Monday, 10/14/2024. Please let SLOPD know so they can respond instead of sending SNAP. 1684 Mill Street (Delta Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 281 Albert Drive (Delta Upsilon) 248-250 Grand Ave (Theta Chi) 281 Hathway Ave (Kappa Sigma) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 348 Hathway Ave (Phi Kappa Psi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1525 Slack St (Sigma Pi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 2090 Hays (Sigma Epsilon) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1218 Bond St (Alpha Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1229 Fredericks (Phi Gamma Delta aka FIJI) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 654 Graves (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 299 Albert (Alpha Sigma Pi) 12 Hathway (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1841 Slack St (Sigma Nu) 66 Rafael (Pi Kappa Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE IN THE CITY 1820 Hope (Theta Chi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 322 Hathway (Kappa Sigma) 1908 Loomis (Phi Sigma Kappa) 1276 Bond St (Phi Kappa Psi) 237 Albert Dr (Phi Kappa Psi) 124 Stenner (Sigma Pi) 171 Orange (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1646 Fredericks St (Zeta Beta Tau) 1868 Loomis (Delta Upsilon) 260 Chaplin (Phi Delta Theta) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1632 Fredericks (Sigma Nu) 255 Chaplin (Alpha Sigma Phi) Sincerely, -Kathie Walker Event posted on Instagram for rush event Phi Sigma Kappa Saturday Oct 5, 6 – 10 pm Photo of event in progress. Fraternity lettering posted at1908 Loomis rush event 10/5/2024 at 6 p.m. Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Event also posted Phi Sigma Kappa’s Instagram story promoting their rush event at 1908 Loomis from 6-10 pm (photo taken in backyard of Phi Sigma Kappa’s main Fraternity house at 348 Hathway Ave) Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Event posted on Instagram for rush event for Sigma Nu at 1841 Slack St Saturday Oct 5, 2 – 6 pm Photo of event in progress. Fraternity lettering posted at Sigma Nu event, 1841 Slack 10/5/2024 at 3 p.m. The signage was still set up on Sunday afternoon, Oct 6, 2024 Sigma Nu’s Instagram also identifies fraternity members living in that “established house”. The SLOMC defines a fraternity as a house where fraternity members live that holds events. The post, below, was made on 10/1/2024 Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Event posted on Instagram for rush event for Phi Kappa Psi Saturday Oct 5, 6 – 10 pm Photo of event in progress. Fraternity lettering posted at Phi Kappa Psi’s event, 1276 Bond St, 10/5/2024, 6 p.m. Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Event posted on Instagram for rush event for Phi Kappa Psi Saturday Oct 5, 6 – 10 pm 1276 Bond St Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Event posted on Instagram for rush event for Phi Kappa Psi at 237 Albert Sunday Oct 6, 10 am – 2 pm Photo of event in progress. Phi Kappa Psi posted rush event at 237 Albert Dr, 10/6/2024 on their Instagram story NOTE: 237 Albert has been an illegal fraternity house for several years. Documentation shows ongoing fraternity events at this address. Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Event posted on Instagram for rush events for Delta Sigma Phi at their main fraternity house at 1684 Mill St Friday Oct 4, 3-5 pm and Sunday 10/6, 6-10 pm Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Event posted on Delta Sigma Phi’s Instagram stories for rush event on Friday 10/4/2024 at their main fraternity house at 1684 Mill St (Friday Oct 4, 3-5 pm) Event posted on Delta Sigma Phi’s Instagram stories for rush event on Sunday 10/6/2024 at their main fraternity house at 1684 Mill St (Sunday Oct 6, 6-10 pm) 1 From:Wilbanks, Megan Sent:Friday, October 11, 2024 2:44 PM To:kathie walker Cc:Scott, Rick; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John; Sheats, Steven; McDonald, Whitney Subject:cc - Walker (Ongoing violations of illegal fraternities) Attachments:Violations posted on Ask SLO app for illegal fraternity events.pdf Kathie Walker, Thank you for taking the time to contact the City Council on this issue. The City Council has received your concerns and, as you included most of the appropriate staff in your correspondence, I’m adding Police Chief Rick Scott to make him aware of your concerns as well. Staff will be following up with you within two business days. BCC: Council All City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 From: kathie walker < > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 9:42 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Sheats, Steven <ssheats@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < ; Karen Adler < ; Stewjenkins Info < ; Sandra Rowley < ; Steven Walker < >; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Subject: Ongoing violations of illegal fraternities not cited This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. City Leaders and Elected Representatives, Our family is desperate to get the illegal fraternities out of our neighborhood and I have been submitting fraternity rush events to the AskSLO app for code enforcement. People living in Monterey Heights and the S. Tassajara/Ramona neighborhoods have also reached out about illegal fraternities that are detrimentally affecting their lives. Last year there were over 60 documented illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. This year there are more, as the problem is growing and spreading into other neighborhoods. It needs to be solved! 2 Several days before Cal Poly's first weekend of fraternity rush (10/4 -10/6) I submitted to AskSLO (code enforcement) some rush events posted on social media. Cal Poly Greek life advised its fraternities not to post their addresses on social media despite each fraternity posting them on Instagram in previous years. Only a few out of 19 fraternities in the Interfraternity Council posted the addresses of their rush events on for Fall 2024. Cal Poly changed their rush policy this year and required potential new members to submit their information to Cal Poly's Greek Life office before the potential new members were personally provided with the addresses of the fraternities' events. I documented each fraternity rush event with video and/or photos as they were happening. Several fraternities also posted the events on their Instagram stories with the address or time, which correspond to each of their Instagram posts about the date, time, and address of the events. Unfortunately, most of my submissions to AskSLO were not cited. Code enforcement claims they "did not find any evidence that the property is being used as an illegal fraternity." I'm not sure how these events were overlooked because there were obvious fraternity rush parties at every one of the addresses reported at the exact date and time that I submitted to the City via AskSLO . How were these fraternity events missed when there were crowds of guys and large signs with Greek letters? If code enforcement staff was unable to confirm the rush events listed because of they don't work weekends, could the city have SLOPD verify them? Somehow, code enforcement needs to be able to document these illegal fraternity events that happen every weekend during the academic year so there needs to be a better system since these were not cited when they were blatantly obvious to any observer. Additionally, I was able to identify and document many other rush events at illegal fraternity houses during the weekend including the addresses listed at the bottom of this email. Most have been operating as illegal fraternity houses for a long time, and many are the main chapter houses for their fraternity in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods, where they are not allowed. Since I know the specific addresses historically tied to each fraternity, the events weren't difficult to find because each fraternity posted its schedules with the date and time of each event. I knew the addresses from the previous years of their fraternity operations so it was simple to check those locations during the times listed on their rush schedule. The events also had crowds and Greek signage/booths in front of their houses. I've attached documentation to show that the fraternities I submitted to Ask SLO hosted rush events at illegal fraternity houses. Please use this information to reconsider the violations I previously submitted to code enforcement via Ask SLO. If you need the videos, I will provide them. I will follow up with more documentation for rush events at the other addresses listed below that have not yet been submitted to AskSLO. This weekend is the final weekend of rush (10/11 - 10/13) and Monday (10/14) is "bid night" so there will be LARGE parties at all the fraternities. Then it will be a free-for-all every weekend until winter break, and start again from the new year until summer. The addresses of events that held rush events are below and SLOPD should be aware that these properties are operating as illegal fraternity houses. Each of the properties will likely hold events this weekend. The "main chapter houses" will probably host their bid night events on Monday, 10/14/2024. Please let SLOPD know so they can respond instead of sending SNAP. 1684 Mill Street (Delta Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 281 Albert Drive (Delta Upsilon) 248-250 Grand Ave (Theta Chi) 3 281 Hathway Ave (Kappa Sigma) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 348 Hathway Ave (Phi Kappa Psi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1525 Slack St (Sigma Pi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 2090 Hays (Sigma Epsilon) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1218 Bond St (Alpha Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1229 Fredericks (Phi Gamma Delta aka FIJI) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 654 Graves (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 299 Albert (Alpha Sigma Pi) 12 Hathway (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1841 Slack St (Sigma Nu) 66 Rafael (Pi Kappa Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE IN THE CITY 1820 Hope (Theta Chi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 322 Hathway (Kappa Sigma) 1908 Loomis (Phi Sigma Kappa) 1276 Bond St (Phi Kappa Psi) 237 Albert Dr (Phi Kappa Psi) 124 Stenner (Sigma Pi) 171 Orange (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1646 Fredericks St (Zeta Beta Tau) 1868 Loomis (Delta Upsilon) 260 Chaplin (Phi Delta Theta) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1632 Fredericks (Sigma Nu) 255 Chaplin (Alpha Sigma Phi) Sincerely, -Kathie Walker Event posted on Instagram for rush event Phi Sigma Kappa Saturday Oct 5, 6 – 10 pm Photo of event in progress. Fraternity lettering posted at1908 Loomis rush event 10/5/2024 at 6 p.m. Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Event also posted Phi Sigma Kappa’s Instagram story promoting their rush event at 1908 Loomis from 6-10 pm (photo taken in backyard of Phi Sigma Kappa’s main Fraternity house at 348 Hathway Ave) Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Event posted on Instagram for rush event for Sigma Nu at 1841 Slack St Saturday Oct 5, 2 – 6 pm Photo of event in progress. Fraternity lettering posted at Sigma Nu event, 1841 Slack 10/5/2024 at 3 p.m. The signage was still set up on Sunday afternoon, Oct 6, 2024 Sigma Nu’s Instagram also identifies fraternity members living in that “established house”. The SLOMC defines a fraternity as a house where fraternity members live that holds events. The post, below, was made on 10/1/2024 Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Event posted on Instagram for rush event for Phi Kappa Psi Saturday Oct 5, 6 – 10 pm Photo of event in progress. Fraternity lettering posted at Phi Kappa Psi’s event, 1276 Bond St, 10/5/2024, 6 p.m. Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Event posted on Instagram for rush event for Phi Kappa Psi Saturday Oct 5, 6 – 10 pm 1276 Bond St Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Event posted on Instagram for rush event for Phi Kappa Psi at 237 Albert Sunday Oct 6, 10 am – 2 pm Photo of event in progress. Phi Kappa Psi posted rush event at 237 Albert Dr, 10/6/2024 on their Instagram story NOTE: 237 Albert has been an illegal fraternity house for several years. Documentation shows ongoing fraternity events at this address. Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Event posted on Instagram for rush events for Delta Sigma Phi at their main fraternity house at 1684 Mill St Friday Oct 4, 3-5 pm and Sunday 10/6, 6-10 pm Violation submitted on Ask SLO app before the event was held at the illegal fraternity Event posted on Delta Sigma Phi’s Instagram stories for rush event on Friday 10/4/2024 at their main fraternity house at 1684 Mill St (Friday Oct 4, 3-5 pm) Event posted on Delta Sigma Phi’s Instagram stories for rush event on Sunday 10/6/2024 at their main fraternity house at 1684 Mill St (Sunday Oct 6, 6-10 pm) 1 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Friday, October 11, 2024 7:53 AM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: Ongoing violations of illegal fraternities not cited Kathie, Thank you for the details of the actions you took to report these parties. I know it has been a frustrating experience for you navigating the process and the daily experience of living in this area. I will be following up to get better answers on why citations were not issued in these situations and u restart how we can shift our enforcement mechanisms as well as resources. Thank you again for staying so engaged in this process. Take care, Emily Get Outlook for iOS From: kathie walker < > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 9:41:57 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Sheats, Steven <ssheats@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < ; Karen Adler < ; Stewjenkins Info < ; Sandra Rowley < ; Steven Walker < >; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Subject: Ongoing violations of illegal fraternities not cited This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. City Leaders and Elected Representatives, Our family is desperate to get the illegal fraternities out of our neighborhood and I have been submitting fraternity rush events to the AskSLO app for code enforcement. People living in Monterey Heights and the S. Tassajara/Ramona neighborhoods have also reached out about illegal fraternities that are detrimentally affecting their lives. Last year there were over 60 documented illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. This year there are more, as the problem is growing and spreading into other neighborhoods. It needs to be solved! Several days before Cal Poly's first weekend of fraternity rush (10/4 -10/6) I submitted to AskSLO (code enforcement) some rush events posted on social media. Cal Poly Greek life advised its fraternities not to post their addresses on social media despite each fraternity posting them on Instagram in previous years. Only a few out of 19 fraternities in the Interfraternity Council posted the addresses of their rush events on for Fall 2024. Cal Poly changed their rush policy this year and required potential new members to submit their information to Cal Poly's Greek Life office before the potential new members were personally provided with the addresses of the fraternities' events. 2 I documented each fraternity rush event with video and/or photos as they were happening. Several fraternities also posted the events on their Instagram stories with the address or time, which correspond to each of their Instagram posts about the date, time, and address of the events. Unfortunately, most of my submissions to AskSLO were not cited. Code enforcement claims they "did not find any evidence that the property is being used as an illegal fraternity." I'm not sure how these events were overlooked because there were obvious fraternity rush parties at every one of the addresses reported at the exact date and time that I submitted to the City via AskSLO . How were these fraternity events missed when there were crowds of guys and large signs with Greek letters? If code enforcement staff was unable to confirm the rush events listed because of they don't work weekends, could the city have SLOPD verify them? Somehow, code enforcement needs to be able to document these illegal fraternity events that happen every weekend during the academic year so there needs to be a better system since these were not cited when they were blatantly obvious to any observer. Additionally, I was able to identify and document many other rush events at illegal fraternity houses during the weekend including the addresses listed at the bottom of this email. Most have been operating as illegal fraternity houses for a long time, and many are the main chapter houses for their fraternity in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods, where they are not allowed. Since I know the specific addresses historically tied to each fraternity, the events weren't difficult to find because each fraternity posted its schedules with the date and time of each event. I knew the addresses from the previous years of their fraternity operations so it was simple to check those locations during the times listed on their rush schedule. The events also had crowds and Greek signage/booths in front of their houses. I've attached documentation to show that the fraternities I submitted to Ask SLO hosted rush events at illegal fraternity houses. Please use this information to reconsider the violations I previously submitted to code enforcement via Ask SLO. If you need the videos, I will provide them. I will follow up with more documentation for rush events at the other addresses listed below that have not yet been submitted to AskSLO. This weekend is the final weekend of rush (10/11 - 10/13) and Monday (10/14) is "bid night" so there will be LARGE parties at all the fraternities. Then it will be a free-for-all every weekend until winter break, and start again from the new year until summer. The addresses of events that held rush events are below and SLOPD should be aware that these properties are operating as illegal fraternity houses. Each of the properties will likely hold events this weekend. The "main chapter houses" will probably host their bid night events on Monday, 10/14/2024. Please let SLOPD know so they can respond instead of sending SNAP. 1684 Mill Street (Delta Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 281 Albert Drive (Delta Upsilon) 248-250 Grand Ave (Theta Chi) 281 Hathway Ave (Kappa Sigma) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 348 Hathway Ave (Phi Kappa Psi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1525 Slack St (Sigma Pi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 2090 Hays (Sigma Epsilon) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1218 Bond St (Alpha Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1229 Fredericks (Phi Gamma Delta aka FIJI) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 654 Graves (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 299 Albert (Alpha Sigma Pi) 3 12 Hathway (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1841 Slack St (Sigma Nu) 66 Rafael (Pi Kappa Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE IN THE CITY 1820 Hope (Theta Chi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 322 Hathway (Kappa Sigma) 1908 Loomis (Phi Sigma Kappa) 1276 Bond St (Phi Kappa Psi) 237 Albert Dr (Phi Kappa Psi) 124 Stenner (Sigma Pi) 171 Orange (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1646 Fredericks St (Zeta Beta Tau) 1868 Loomis (Delta Upsilon) 260 Chaplin (Phi Delta Theta) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1632 Fredericks (Sigma Nu) 255 Chaplin (Alpha Sigma Phi) Sincerely, -Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Sunday, October 13, 2024 11:04 AM To:Marx, Jan; Shoresman, Michelle; Stewart, Erica A; Pease, Andy; Francis, Emily; E-mail Council Website Subject:Item 6b on 10/15/2024: Appeal to Add Conditions to Fraternity Use Permit (Lambda Chi Alpha) Attachments:Kathie Walker letter to Planning Commission..pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Councilmembers, In June 2024, City Planner Hannah Hanh told me that the conditions of the CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha were based on the two most recent CUPs, which are for two sororities. Each has limited occupancy of 6 and 7 residents, respectively. Fraternity use is much different than sorority use because sororities don’t have parties with alcohol. Sororities go to fraternity houses to party, and fraternities have large parties with alcohol that are extremely disruptive to their neighbors. Even if the City considers sororities and fraternities as the same use, conditions must be added to the proposed CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha to mitigate the known, documented problems associated with noise and fraternity use. The municipal code states that violating the City’s noise ordinance is a public nuisance, is detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of others, and is contrary to public interest. On the other hand, the Staff Report claims that there are “exceptions” to the City’s noise ordinance that enable the Community Development Director to approve Special Event Permits, and such events are allowed to violate the City’s noise ordinance. I can understand issuing a Special Event Permit to allow greater occupancy during certain hours of operation, such as during the day for an event, however allowing a permit to violate the noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood, especially at night, is not reasonable. The municipal code cited by Staff (SLOMC 9.12.100) says that any “exceptions” that allow violation of the noise ordinance can only be granted if all the following three conditions are met: 1. It is subject to limitations “appropriate to protect the public health, safety and welfare from the noise emanating therefrom”, 2. If the [fraternity] applicant can demonstrate that bringing the source of sound or activity into compliance with the noise ordinance “would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the [fraternity] applicant, on the community, or on other persons”, and 3. Must balance the denial [not being allowed to have an event that violates the noise ordinance] as a hardship on the applicant against (1) the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of other persons affected; (2) the adverse impact on property affected; and (3) any other adverse impacts of granting the exception [to allow a fraternity party to violate the noise ordinance]. I’m unsure what limitations cited in item 1. could prevent the neighbors from hearing an outdoor fraternity party with 100 people and/or amplified noise, especially at night when people are trying to sleep, and when the noise ordinance prohibits amplified noise from crossing the property line. Is it truly a “hardship” if the fraternity is not allowed to host an amplified event in a residential neighborhood that violates the noise ordinance? The fraternity representative said they will have at least 4 events over the next 9 months that will requi re Special Event Permits. The fraternity should host those events at a third-party venue so the people living nearby are able to sleep and be rested for work, school, or other life obligations. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly. How many events that violate the noise ordinance (considered by the SLOMC to be a public nuisance, detrimental to health, welfare, and safety, and contrary to public interest ) should the City’s neighborhoods endure? Another factor that isn’t mentioned is that sororities and other guests walk through the neighborhoods to attend these events. They yell, especially after they’ve been drinking, coming and going from the events and this goes on for hours. Fraternity parties impact the neighborhood beyond the fraternity house, itself. 2 The “hardship” of living near a fraternity is borne by the neighbors who are kept awake by loud fraternity parties. There is no way to balance or mitigate the adverse impact for those living and working nearby. It is not reasonable to allow events within a residential neighborhood that violate the noise ordinance which, according to the City’s municipal code, is detrimental to people’s health, safety, and welfare and is a public nuisance. Our family is impacted by fraternities on Foothill Blvd. We can hear them from our house. At times we thought the noise was coming from a block over on Bond St or Hathway Ave because it was so loud, but upon locating the source of the noise, we found the party was at a fraternity on Foothill. A video link to one recent event at a fraternity on Foothill that could be heard from our house is included in my previous correspondence to the Planning Commission. I have attached my correspondence to this email. It took three responses from SLOPD to shut down the fraternity party on Foothill Blvd and officers had to call their sergeant to the scene because the fraternity refused to stop the disruptive party! I’ve wondered if there were any consequences to that fraternity, other than the noise citations. Our family needs to sleep due to work and other family obligations. If my husband can’t sleep, he cannot go to work because he has a safety-related job, and if he can’t work it affects our family’s income. Using the balancing factors cited by City staff, outlined in SLOMC 9.12.100, a “hardship” on a fraternity for not being able to host large parties with amplified noise in violation of the noise ordinance, does not outweigh the protection of the neighborhood and allowing people to sleep so they can go to work. I honestly can’t believe I have to say this because it seems like common sense. There are obvious blind spots within the City Administration when it comes to dealing with the “fraternity situation” overall, understanding/enforcing the noise they generate, and enforcing the existing CUPs for permitted fraternity houses that flout the law, even when a written complaint is made. There are also 70+ documented illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternity houses throughout the City’s neighborhoods, many operating as the main chapter houses for their fraternities, and they are still going strong a year after I gave a detailed report to Community Development with documentation of the fraternity locations, including fraternities' social media posts. Cal Poly’s AB 524 report also documented the address locations of fraternity events, which confirmed the social media documentation I provided in my report. The standard of proof required to cite these illegal fraternities is a “preponderance of the evidence” which means it is more likely than not. The documentation adequately met that burden, yet the fraternities continue to operate illegally at the addresses that were identified a year ago. Unfortunately, many of those addresses, including the main chapter houses of some fraternities, were not sent Notices of Viol ation or Advisory Letters. Some were, but even then, some Notices of Violation were missing dates, and many of the Advisory Letters were lost by the Community Development Department, so there is no physical record. I was asked to use the AskSLO app to make reports and did so, but most of the reports I made that specifically identified dates, times, and addresses of illegal fraternity events were not followed up on during the dates, times, and addresses provided to the Community Development Department so were dismissed as unfounded, even though the events occurred. The "fraternity situation" has been so disheartening. And now I am even more baffled after reading the City Staff's arguments AGAINST addition conditions to the fraternity's CUP which promotes wellness in the neighborhood. Is it because Community Development staff are already so overburdened that they don't want to take responsibility for enforcing the CUP? I can't think of any other logical explanation to justify not having a threshold of violations that trigger a review of the CUP by the Planning Commission. Under the “exceptions” cited by City Staff that would allow the fraternity to violate the noise ordinance (9.12.100. A.2.), the municipal code also says, “Any individual who claims to be adversely affected by an allowance of the exception may file a statement with the noise control officer containing any information to support his or her claim. If at any time the noise control officer finds that a sufficient controversy exists regarding an application, a public hearing will be held.” How does “any individual” know that the fraternity has applied for an “exception” to host an event in violation of the noise ordinance? Are neighbors notified before the noise control officer grants the exception so they "have an opportunity file a statement with the noise control officer"? The Staff report says a Special Event Permit can only be approved with the three required findings listed in SLOMC 17.108.040. Finding 2 says the event “is consistent with or an improvement to the character of the neighborhood or zone.” A fraternity party does not improve the character of the neighborhood. Also, a fraternity is not allowed “by right” in an R-4 neighborhood. The CUP is meant to include conditions that mitigate the impact of fraternity use so that the fraternity house fits into the residential neighborhood, as a residence that is permitted to hold gatherings of up to a certain amount of people during certain hours. People of all demographics live in our neighborhood. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario that would be considered an improvement to the character of the neighborhood by allowing a fraternity event to violate the noise ordinance. 3 Please limit Special Event Permits to allow an increase in occupancy limitations for events, and do not allow events to violate the City's noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood. Appeal Issue No. 3 – Limitation reverts to “residential occupancy” limit per condition 4 at night from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. The appeal also asks for a limitation on occupancy from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. based on the maximum allowed residential occupancy limitation listed in condition 4, which says “The fraternity shall be limited to a maximum of 24 residents for the property.” The Staff Response says that the condition cannot limit the type of people (residents vs. non-residents) but acknowledges that it is permissible to limit the number of people for the use. While the wording of the condition cannot list the limitation to residents, it is legal to limit the occupancy to 24 after 10 p.m. Condition 5 limits the number of people for “routine meetings and gatherings” to 48. The reason the limitation of persons on site after 10 p.m. is included in other fraternity CUPs and is requested here is that the noise generated by 48 people is much greater than the noise generated by 24 people. This is a residence in a residential neighborhood. The fraternity representative told the Planning Commission that gatherings happen outdoors, between the front and back houses. Noise generated by 48 people would violate the noise ordinance and disturb the neighbors. The primary concern about the fraternity’s use is noise. I know the noise ordinance isn’t that interesting but here are some main points: -The noise ordinance is a 24/7 regulation and prohibits a "noise disturbance" that is plainly audible 50 feet from the noisemaker. The dictionary defines a "noise disturbance" as the interruption of a settled and peaceful condition. -Amplified sound (television, radio, etc.) is prohibited from crossing the property line after 10 p.m. - Depending on the "character of sound", for example, if the noise contains music or speech, it cannot exceed 45 decibels across the property line after 10 p.m. for 30 minutes, which is equivalent to the sound level in a library. Noise that includes music or speech at 65 decibels is prohibited from crossing the property line, which is equivalent to the sound level of a normal conversation. These are the standards outlined in the City’s noise ordinance. There are free apps you can download on your phone that measure decibel levels and it’s surprising how “loud” everyday things are, such as a conversation, which can be disturbing at night when ambient noise levels are low and people nearby are trying to sleep. Limiting the number of people after 10 p.m. is consistent with the required findings per SLOMC 17.86.130, which is also cited in the Findings of the Draft Resolution and states “the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because conditions have been included that place limits on the number of persons allowed on site, restrict activities … and limit potential disturbances to neighboring properties.” Nighttime, after 10 p.m., is a sensitive time when most people are trying to sleep, and it is a reasonable condition to limit the number of people on the property to 24 from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Please add this condition to the fraternity’s CUP. Land Use and Housing Elements in the General Plan The Findings in the Draft Resolution state that the project is consistent with the General Plan because “the project would facilitate Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5 and Housing Element Policy 8.6 (sic) by locating a fraternity in proximity to the Cal Poly SLO campus.” For context, the first sentence of Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5 states, “The City shall work with Cal Poly to develop a proposal to locate fraternities and sororities on campus for consideration by the CSU Board.” The secondary portion of the policy says, “If locations on campus cannot be provided, fraternities and sororities should be limited to medium-high and high-density residential areas near campus.” Please consider the intended meaning of this policy. Allowing more and more fraternities to overtake the residential neighborhoods does not further this policy. The first sentence of Housing Element Policy 8.5 says, “Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University campus. And secondarily, “Until that is possible, they should be located in medium-high to high-density residential zones near campus.” (Policy 8.6, referenced in the Draft Resolution, refers to Cal Poly staff housing and is not applicable here.) Again, the primary sentence in this policy is for fraternities to be located on campus, not in the City's neighborhoods. Allowing more fraternities in the City does not "facilitate" the intended meaning of these policies in the General Plan, as claimed in the Draft Resolution. Housing Element Program 8.15 says, “Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus fraternity/sorority living groups.” That portion of the General Plan was not included in the Draft Resolution. 4 These Programs and Policies were adopted ten years ago, in 2014. What has the City done to further their implementation? The City’s General Plan recognizes that fraternities and sororities do not belong in the City and should be located on Cal Poly’s campus. The Planning Commissioners also said that fraternities should be on Cal Poly’s campus. Since Cal Poly does not have a Greek Row, the burden of housing the fraternities falls on the City and its neighborhoods. To mitigate the negative impacts of a fraternity in a residential neighborhood, a CUP must have conditions that specifically address relevant issues, and those conditions should be listed in the CUP so they are clear to the fraternity. Specific conditions that address common issues for a fraternity’s use should be included in the CUP to establish clear communication of the expectations and the consequences for the fraternity if they don’t adhere to the listed conditions. For instance, the following condition is included in other fraternity CUPs, which was requested in the appeal, and makes sense: “Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for the revocation of this permit.” The City Staff implies that the fraternity already has to follow this condition of use because it must follow Federal, State, and local laws and the obligation is listed throughout Chapter 17 of the SLOMC, so it doesn't need to be included as a condition. If it’s not listed as a condition in the CUP, how does the fraternity know that it’s a condition of use? Also, any written complaints, especially by community members, are based on the conditions outlined in the CUP. It's confusing if the condition is not specifically listed as a condition in the CUP. This condition and others suggested in the appeal, should be included in the CUP so the conditions are clear to the fraternity and the community. Finally, you might think that Lambda Chi Alpha would be on their best behavior in anticipation of this appeal. Cal Poly has only been in session for a month, so it seems simple: Don’t have loud parties that violate the noise ordinance and don’t have more t han the maximum occupancy of 48 as outlined in the CUP before the City Council hearing on 10/15/2024. But in the past few weeks, the fraternity has had multiple calls to SLOPD for noise. (None were made by me or my family.) During the first week of classes a call was made to SLOPD and the dispatcher noted in the log that the fraternity was partying in the front yard at 1264 Foothill with a sign that said, “YOU HONK, WE DRINK”. After that, there were at least two more loud parties at night and were issued noise citations at 1264 Foothill on 10/2/2024 and 10/9/2024. One citation lists 70 people at the party. During the Planning Commission hearing, the Chair asked the fraternity representative, Thomas Symer, if Lambda Chi Alpha had any satellite houses that held fraternity events in the neighborhood. Mr. Symer said they did not. However, that isn’t true. Lambda Chi Alpha has at least five illegal fraternity houses in the Alta Vista neighborhood that held documented fraternity events during the last academic year, including at 171 Orange, 12 Hathway, 253 Albert, and 278 Albert. Mr. Symer’s name was listed as the person cited at a fraternity event at one of those addresses. Lambda Chi Alpha has continued to hold illegal fraternity events at those addresses during rush recruitment this academic year, for the past two weekends. 5 The fraternity is not even pretending to care about the neighborhood even though they know their use permit is subject to a City Council hearing on 10/15/2024. This emphasizes the need for clear conditions in the CUP that outline the conditions/rules for and the consequences of the fraternity use. Conditions are necessary and also beneficial for the community and the fraternity because they clarify the expectations and mitigate the impact of use. As mentioned, a fraternity's use is not “by-right” in an R-4 zone. The reason a CUP is required - to set forth conditions to resolve the negative impacts - is so the fraternity house(s) fits into the R-4 zone as a residential use. I am baffled at the City’s resistance to strengthening the CUP for this large, impactful fraternity use. This CUP will be a model for other fraternity CUPs. It is critical that it contains meaningful conditions that make the fraternity’s obligations clear and mitigate its impact on the neighborhood. I urge you to uphold the appeal to add conditions to the fraternity CUP for the good of the neighborhood and the fraternity, so everyone knows what is expected because it’s listed as a condition in the CUP. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 June 6, 2024 Dear Planning Commissioners, I support Lambda Chi Alpha’s conditional use permit (CUP) for fraternity operations at 1264 & 1264 ½ Foothill Blvd and 1241, 1243, 1249 and 1251 Monte Vista Place. The conditions in a CUP are important to ensure that the neighbors of a fraternity house are not adversely impacted by fraternity operations. I feel there are some conditions missing from the CUP which are covered in more detail below. The parking suggested is good because much of our neighborhood is not a parking district and it is difficult for guests to find parking on the street. The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City development standards and regulations including section 17.86.130 A, which says, “This section is intended to promote the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by ensuring that dwelling units housing multiple persons who are members of a fraternity or sorority provide adequate support facilities for the intensity of associated use, and that such uses are operated in a manner that is not detrimental to the neighborhood in which they are located due to excessive noise, inadequate off-street parking, general property maintenance, and similar conditions…” The proposed CUP does not adequately address the noise problems associated with fraternity houses. I have been invested in the fraternity issue in our neighborhood for the last couple of years because our home has been increasingly surrounded by fraternity houses and it has negatively affected my family. I began researching the issue which led me to a understand the gravity of the situation and the City’s predicament. There are only seven fraternity CUPs but 18 fraternities in Cal Poly’s Interfraternity Council (IFC), and most fraternities have multiple house locations. The information I uncovered blew my mind, to be honest, because it’s gotten so far out of control. I spoke with Derek Johnson (previous city manager) about it, and he encouraged me to share my information with Timmi Tway who was newly hired as Community Development Director. So, I prepared a report, including detailed information about each of the fraternities and an outline of the overall situation, and provided it to Ms. Tway and John Mezzapesa during a meeting with them last year. I apologize for the length of my letter and appreciate your time to review it. The Cal Poly fraternity situation is a huge issue and is difficult to understand the scope without some context that is relevant to the proposed CUP. THE NATURE OF FRATERNITY HOUSES As fraternities have emerged in our neighborhood, I can confirm that movies like Animal House and Neighbors are not an exaggeration of the chaos that a fraternity house brings to a neighborhood. The Courts have repeatedly established that a fraternity house is a unique classification of housing that has an adverse effect on neighboring properties due to noise and other issues, therefore cities have specific zoning regulations associated with their placement in a community. There is a big difference between denser housing such as apartments or a boarding house and a fraternity house, and court rulings have consistently confirmed that fact. In Long Beach v. Sigma Alpha Epsilon, the court stated: “The facts of life dictate that there is a vast difference between a boarding house or lodging house and a fraternity house... college spirit contemplates frequent gatherings with attendant boisterous conduct on occasions. The rush parties, the dances, the rallies and other manifestations of the collegiate spirit are present in a fraternity house and frequently absent in a boarding house or an apartment.” City of Long Beach v. California Lambda Chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, 255 Cal.App.2d 789. While a fraternity house is allowed in R-3 and R-4 zones in the City, the CUP must have conditions to address and mitigate the known issues related to a fraternity house, so it is not detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of those living and working in the neighborhood. Noise pollution (defined as an unwanted or disturbing sound) has been linked to health problems. Noise also disturbs a good night of sleep and causes difficulty falling asleep and 2 awakening, which lead to sleep deprivation and several other negative health consequences such as depressed mood, decreased cognitive performance, and fatigue1. We have many unpermitted “satellite” fraternity houses around our home, and there is one fraternity with a CUP at the end of our street. We can hear fraternity parties from our home, including at the fraternities on Foothill Blvd. Our neighborhood feels like a downtown bar district on many weekends because of the fraternity houses nearby. My husband and I have raised our sons here and our neighborhood has completely changed, especially over the past several years, specifically because of the proliferation of fraternity houses nearby. We have known and enjoyed our college-student neighbors and do not expect a perfectly quiet neighborhood. In fact, we loved the vitality of the mix of residents who lived here. When our sons were young, we carved pumpkins on our porch with college-student neighbors during Halloween season. I also participated in the production of a video for Cal Poly that was shown during W.O.W. week, promoting the relationship between long-term residents and our college student neighbors. But we no longer recognize our neighborhood, and it has become a nightmare because of the fraternity houses. I cannot begin to describe the adverse effect the “fraternity situation” has had on my and my family’s life, because we are unable to rest or enjoy our property much of the time due to the noise from fraternity houses. Fraternity parties are completely different from standard college-student parties, and fraternity house operations are completely different than standard college-student housing situations. Last year, Theta Chi fraternity moved into the rental house across the street and immediately had a fraternity party in their backyard with 700 people. At the same time, Sigma Pi fraternity moved into the rental house next door and had non-stop fraternity activities, drinking games, loud music and parties late at night, people coming and going, slamming doors, yelling throughout the night, and vomiting from their side deck near our bedroom windows due to overconsumption of alcohol. Fraternities are nocturnal operations and many of their events are centered around alcohol consumption.2 We did everything possible to work with the fraternity next door by texting them instead of calling SLOPD and we heard every excuse you can imagine. When we went over to break up an enormous fraternity party after one of their guests vomited in our front yard, some of the fraternity tenants told us that we don’t belong in this neighborhood and should move. Afterward, we decided we would no longer text them and would call SLOPD for their parties. Soon after, they received a noise citation while my husband was at work (he sometimes works nightshift) and they began harassing and cyberstalking me. Although their lease was not renewed for this year, they still dox me online, post untrue things using my full name on social media, advertise open parties at our home address, trespass onto our property near our bedroom window and say my name, and other creepy things that are caught on our video surveillance. I am not blaming this sort of activity on all fraternities. However, there is an overall entitlement that we have repeatedly experienced by many of the fraternity members in our neighborhood, that they have the right to have crazy parties whenever and however they want, and if we don’t like it, we shouldn’t live here. The unique nature of a fraternity house makes it important to set out clear terms in the CUP, from the beginning, so the fraternity and the neighborhood know what to expect. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SORORITIES & FRATERNITIES Sororities are governed by the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) and the NPC prohibits alcohol in sorority houses and the use of Panhellenic funds for alcohol, which means that sororities cannot host parties with alcohol in 1 Citation: Noise Pollution, Southern Medical Journal. https://docs.wind-watch.org/goineshagler-noisepollution.html 2 After a Cal Poly SLO fraternity pledge, Carson Starkey, died from alcohol poisoning, the National Interfraternity Conference sent industry experts to Cal Poly to conduct an in-depth assessment of the school’s Greek system, according to university records. … The assessment, prepared by fraternity executives, college administrators and a social worker… said alcohol was “a, and perhaps THE, defining factor” of Greek life. (“Cal Poly Brings Back Freshman Pledging After Lobbying ”, Bloomberg News, October 14, 2013.) 3 their houses. They can host social events at third-party venues but mostly, sororities at Cal Poly attend fraternity parties at fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo. The fraternity houses near our home have raging parties that host different sororities on weekends throughout the academic year. Nearly every weekend that Cal Poly is in session, we see and hear large groups of females walking to and from fraternity houses in our neighborhood. Cal Poly posted a report online that lists the “sanctioned events” of every fraternity and sorority at Cal Poly during the academic year 2022-2023, including the location of each party/event held by each fraternity and sorority.3 Every sorority party event listed in the report is at the addresses of a fraternity house in San Luis Obispo, including satellite fraternity houses, or an event at a third-party venue. This is in line with the NPC policy that prohibits parties with alcohol at sorority houses. Since sorority houses don’t host large, alcohol-fueled parties, they do not have the same impact and repercussions on the neighborhood as fraternity houses. HOURS OF OPERATION After reviewing the conditions outlined in the CUP, I noticed there are some important conditions missing, such as hours of operation. The existing CUPs for other Cal Poly fraternities state that no meetings or gatherings will take place between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. This is a critical item, to ensure that noise from the fraternity doesn’t adversely impact the neighboring properties. I have attached the CUPs for every fraternity in San Luis Obispo, for your reference (Fraternity Report, pgs. 15- 50.) Of the seven CUPs for fraternities in the city, one fraternity (Sigma Nu) has two CUPs, so only six fraternities have use permits out of 18 fraternities in the IFC. Cal Poly does not provide on-campus housing for any of their fraternities and most fraternities have several houses at different addresses that operate as fraternity houses. Some CUPs for fraternities do not allow parties. For example, Sigma Nu’s CUP at 1304 Foothill, condition 11 prohibits parties except for two events per year for parents and alumni: “No hosted Greek events on the site shall be allowed (i.e. TG’s [themed gatherings], rush events, little sisters, etc.) One parents’ barbeque and one alumni barbecue may be held at the site each year. Not more than thirty-eight (38) persons may be present at either event, including fraternity members.” Condition 10 specifically prohibits the use of amplified sound at events. Condition 5 states, “No meetings or other gatherings involving persons other than fraternity members living on the site are allowed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m.” and condition 3 strictly limits all fraternity activity to the house only, “for residential use”. Sigma Nu’s CUP was approved 30 years ago, and the number of fraternities at Cal Poly has increased since then, which has had a greater impact and more strain on our neighborhood. Wit h this increase, there is a responsibility to ensure that the known issues of a fraternity house are thoroughly addressed and not diluted in the CUP. The current Applicant, Lambda Chi Alpha, had a CUP for an address at 1292 Foothill Blvd. The CUP stays with the property, which is now occupied by Sigma Nu. The conditions include (condition 7) “No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities involving persons other than the residents are allowed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m., except as provided by the Community Development Director.” The CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha’s current application should include the same language. NOISE IMPACTS NEAR A LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD In Attachment B, the Applicant states that the property is located “steps from the Cal Poly campus” but it is important to note that it is also steps from an R-1 & R-2 residential neighborhood with many long-term residents and others who are impacted by the fraternity. (See neighborhood map, below) 3 The AB 524 Report is mandated by Assembly Bill 524: The Campus Recognized Fraternity and Sorority Transparency Act, and is posted on Cal Poly’s Greek Life webpage, beginning 10/1/2023, and annually thereafter. The report for this academic year (2023-2024) will be posted on 10/1/2024. 4 Fraternity parties on Foothill Blvd can be heard from blocks away. Noise travels throughout the neighborhood and it is difficult to tell where it is coming from unless you walk to the party to find the exact location. Many times, I have thought a party was the next block over, and was surprised it was at a fraternity three blocks away on Foothill Blvd. There are so many examples, but I’ll describe a recent incident on Memorial Day weekend which illustrates how we are affected by fraternity parties on Foothill Blvd. On 5/25/2024, we could hear loud music and a lot of yelling at around 2 p.m. It continued to get louder over the course of an hour, and we found it was coming from a fraternity a few blocks away at 1237 Foothill. We called SLOPD and were told that the party had already been issued a noise citation and SLOPD would go back to the party location. Two hours later, the thumping music and screaming could still be heard from our home. We went over to see if it was the same party, and it was. There were police officers sitting in two SLOPD units parked on Kentucky Ave , facing toward Hathway. People were climbing over the fence from Hathway to reach the backyard of 1237 Foothill. One officer said the fraternity had already been issued two noise citations, but the fraternity refused to stop the party! The officer had called his sergeant to respond so they could figure out what to do. We endured hours of thumping music and screaming from the fraternity party three blocks away from our home. 5 It has become more common for a fraternity to continue their loud party even after they’ve been issued a citation for a noise violation. Sometimes the party increases in size and volume and SLOPD is called again. The day after the party described above, on 5/26/2024, there was another large fraternity party at 1841 Slack for Zeta Beta Tau. The SLOPD dispatch log shows someone called SLOPD at 1:50 p.m. and a noise citation was issued with 70 people noted, but the party didn’t stop and continued to grow. At 2:30 p.m. another call was made to SLOPD issued another citation and noted 100+ people. Someone else called SLOPD from Hays & Graves, a block away, to report a large party heard in the area. After Zeta Beta Tau ended the party on Slack, they had a loud party at another of their documented satellite fraternity houses on Albert and received another noise citation. One does not expect a standard party to consist of 50-100+ loud, intoxicated people with blaring music heard blocks away, day and night, even in an R-4 zone, but that describes a standard fraternity party. There are also constant drinking games, yelling, chanting and profanity throughout the weekend, increased car and foot and traffic, to and from the fraternity parties, and intoxicated people screaming as they pass by. There is no escape if you live nearby. The only way to have any order is to set out detailed conditions in the CUP, that address the hours of operation and noise impacts in a meaningful way, and to enforce the CUP. I have attached a 2-minute video with series of videos in the past few weeks including:  A short clip of the Theta Chi party at 1237 Foothill on 5/25/2024, taken from a block away in an R-1 zone.  The video that was posted by Theta Chi fraternity beforehand, advertising the party that took place at 1237 Foothill on Saturday 5/25/2024.  The video that was posted by a Zeta Beta Chi fraternity advertising a party that took place at 1841 Slack on Sunday 5/26/2024.  The video posted by a Phi Sigma Kappa fraternity advertising a party beforehand that took place at 348 Hathway on 5/18/2024.  Video taken of the party at 348 Hathway on 5/18/2024. If the attachment doesn’t work here’s a link: https://vimeo.com/955676812?share=copy We have dozens of videos and, unfortunately, have become increasingly frustrated over the past two years due to lack of action by the City. I’ve attached video with some snippets from various fraternity parties for one fraternity house so you can get an idea of the noise impact from a fraternity house. Link: https://vimeo.com/955760836?share=copy People who live in our neighborhood can’t get away from the constant noise and disruptions that are specifically from fraternity houses in our neighborhood unless we leave our home. And when a party is at night and keeps us awake, we must get out of bed, get dressed, and go find the party to get an address to call SLOPD. There needs to be conditions added to Lambda Chi Alpha’s CUP to better define the fraternity operation, so everything is clear from the beginning, for the benefit of the fraternity and the impacted neighborhood. FOUR STRIKES The CUP should include a condition that outlines a threshold for noise violations, which triggers a review of the CUP. For example, “If four noise citations are issued to the property within 12 months - including a cumulative total of all addresses within the same parcel - the conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may add, delete or modify the conditions of approval or may revoke the use permit.” Condition 3 of the proposed CUP says the CUP “shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the City receives substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, Fire Department or Police Department employee, which contains information and/or evidence supporting a conclusion that a violation of this Conditional Use Permit, or of City Ordinances, regulations, or Police Department resources (e.g., calls for service) applicable to the fraternity use has occurred.” 6 1. One complaint should satisfy this condition, instead of multiple complaints, so that word should be changed from “complaints” to “complaint” in condition 3. 2. It is highly unlikely that the city will write a complaint. The city has not been proactive whatsoever about regulating fraternity operations for at least a decade, when it was documented that there were illegal fraternity houses on Hathway, after a roof collapsed during St. Fratty’s Day. In my report given to Ms. Tway and Mr. Mezzapesa, I pointed out the ongoing violations of the existing CUPs at fraternity houses, but the city did not take any action against the CUPs. For example, Alpha Gamma Rho has been suspended by Cal Poly for two years and is not in good standing, which is automatic grounds for revoking their CUP, but when last I heard, their CUP was not revoked. 3. Residents are reluctant to come forward to file a written complaint and risk being targeted by the fraternity. Several of my affected neighbors have expressed fear about that. Some have contacted Mr. Mezzapesa but will not file a written complaint because they are afraid of retaliation. 4. My husband and I finally made a written complaint against a fraternity CUP in early February based on ongoing violations, including six noise citations / two unruly gatherings in 10 months. No action has been taken by the city. It’s been over four months since the complaint was filed, and the fraternity has received more noise complaints and has been issued at least four more noise citations since then. It makes more sense to have a certain number of strikes (citations) outlined in the conditions, and when that is surpassed, the CUP shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. A WRITTEN COMPLAINT REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME If a substantiated written complaint is received, the CUP should set forth a timeline for referral to the Planning Commission, for example, within 30 days. LIVE BANDS, DJs, and AMPLIFIED MUSIC Chapter 9.3 of the SLOMC defines the prohibition of unruly gatherings (URG). Unpermitted live bands, DJs and amplified music fall under the URG definition (Section 9.13.020 E) yet are extremely common at a fraternity house. Unfortunately, SLOPD does not often cite live bands, amplified music, and/or DJs as unruly gatherings. Also, Community Development enforces the terms of the CUP and SLOPD does not. The CUP should include a condition that prohibits unpermitted live bands, DJs and amplified music. Although it is already recognized in the SLOMC, other provisions of the SLOMC are listed as conditions of the CUP, and are also covered by the SLOMC, such as the loss of the CUP if the fraternity loses its standing which is specified under SLOMC (17.86.130 A.3). Listing unpermitted bands, etc. as a condition will underscore the importance especially as it pertains to a fraternity house, as this law is commonly violated. If they don’t plan to have unpermitted live bands, DJs and amplified music, then they should not object to having this condition in their CUP. CUMULATIVE CITATIONS FOR FRATERNITY OPERATIONS ON SAME PARCEL Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 052-071-030 includes all the addresses in this application for the CUP. If a noise citation is issued to the fraternity, regardless of whether it is for any one of the listed six addresses on the parcel, the citation should accumulate against the APN, not each separate address. The fine for a noise citation increases for each citation written as follows: 1st noise citation, $350, second noise citation, $700, third and subsequent noise citation, $1,000. After nine months without a citation, the fine reverts to $350. When there are multiple addresses on the same parcel, each address is treated separately, so their first citation is $350 for each address. This is because there is a presumption that unrelated groups of people reside at each separate addresses, so it would not be fair to hold one group responsible for the other group’s behavior. However, Lambda Chi Alpha is applying for a CUP as a single entity / fraternity to occupy all addresses on the parcel. Therefore, the fraternity should be held responsible for noise citations cumulatively for the same parcel. 7 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Most CUPs for other fraternities include a “neighborhood relations plan” with annual training. At the very least, the fraternity should be made aware of the terms of their CUP every Fall so they understand their responsibilities. NOISE HISTORY OF LAMBDA CHI ALPHA AT THIS LOCATION Since Lambda Chi Alpha has been operating at 1264 Foothill, there have been numerous calls to SLOPD for noisy parties. The fraternity was issued a noise citation at 3:45 a.m. on St. Fratty’s Day, 3/16/2024. Prior to St. Fratty’s Day, in anticipation of the potential for early morning disruptions in the neighborhood, city representatives met with Greek life leaders at Cal Poly and specifically warned them about their participation in St. Fratty’s Day. SLOPD also did not allow fraternities to register parties on 3/16/2024, St. Fratty’s Day. Still, Lambda Chi Alpha received two noise citations at this property early that morning. One week earlier, on 3/10/2023, the fraternity held an event called “SLO Jam” with multiple unpermitted live bands on the property, which is against the law in all residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. The fraternity originally planned to hold the event at a satellite house on Albert Drive, but code enforcement told them and the property owner that live bands are not allowed in any residential neighborhood, and they would receive a code violation if they held the event. Instead of canceling the event, the fraternity moved it to 1264 Foothill and held the event anyway with several unpermitted live bands. Less than five months earlier, on 10/27/2023 at around 10 p.m. my husband and I witnessed hundreds of people in Halloween costumes streaming out of the house and yard at 1264 Foothill Blvd. SLOPD had blocked off a lane of traffic on Foothill Blvd to clear out an out-of-control party at the fraternity house and there were many officers, including bicycle officers, on scene, escorting people off of the property. On 7/14/2023 at 12:30 a.m. the property at 1264 Foothill was cited for a noise violation, and a month earlier, on 6/17/2023 at 11:23 p.m., they received another noise violation. The property at 1241 Monte Vista was issued a noise violation on 2/3/2023 at 10:11 p.m. and had multiple other noise complaints since Fall 2022. 1243 Monte Vista received a citation on 12/2/2023. 1249 Monte Vista had a report filed by SLOPD for a noisy party on 11/15/2022. 1251 Monte Vista had noise violations on 12/3/2022, 12/8/2023, and another on 3/16/2024 at 3:30 a.m., St. Fratty’s Day. This is not a quiet property. The neighbors are negatively impacted by the noise and other fraternity activity. To put this in perspective, most addresses in our neighborhood don’t have a single noise violation but most of the fraternity houses have had multiple noise violations. Please don’t normalize the disruption of a fraternity house just because it’s near campus, because it’s also near our lower-density residential neighborhood. The CUP should address and mitigate the impacts of the fraternity operation, consistent with the CUPs for other Cal Poly fraternities, to ensure that the fraternity members understand the responsibilities toward their neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration and time. Best Regards, Kathie Walker 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Sunday, October 13, 2024 1:46 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Item 6b on 10/15/2024: Appeal to Add Conditions to Fraternity Use Permit (Lambda Chi Alpha) Hi Kathie, Thanks for the email. I read the full appeal document, and the new added language to the CUP that resulted from the Planning Commission Meeting. It appears that the team and Commission has addressed some of your concerns with their amendments. But, perhaps not all. Forgive me for being direct, but of all that you note below, can you please tell me some specific suggestions for what you would like changed about the current CUP that has not been addressed? Enforcement is something that we will continue, as you know, to work on regardless of the approval of this CUP or not. Especially at certain times of the year, there is no way for our “city eyes” to be everywhere at once, in a city of 48,000 residents. So, we will continue to rely on neighborhood members to report when bad things and disruptions when they are happening. Thank you. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 11:04 AM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Item 6b on 10/15/2024: Appeal to Add Conditions to Fraternity Use Permit (Lambda Chi Alpha) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Councilmembers, In June 2024, City Planner Hannah Hanh told me that the conditions of the CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha were based on the two most recent CUPs, which are for two sororities. Each has limited occupancy of 6 and 7 residents, respectively. Fraternity use is much different than sorority use because sororities don’t have parties with alcohol. Sororities go to fraternity houses to party, and fraternities have large parties with alcohol that are extremely disruptive to their neighbors. Even if the City considers sororities and fraternities as the same use, conditions must be added to the proposed CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha to mitigate the known, documented problems associated with noise and fraternity use. The municipal code states that violating the City’s noise ordinance is a public nuisance, is detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of others, and is contrary to public interest. On the other hand, the Staff Report claims that there are “exceptions” to the City’s noise ordinance that enable the Community Development Director to approve Special Event Permits, and such events are allowed to violate the City’s noise ordinance. I can understand issuing a Special Event Permit to allow greater occupancy during certain hours of operation, such as during the day for an event, however allowing a permit to violate the noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood, especially at night, is not reasonable. The municipal code cited by Staff (SLOMC 9.12.100) says that any “exceptions” that allow violation of the noise ordinance can only be granted if all the following three conditions are met: 1. It is subject to limitations “appropriate to protect the public health, safety and welfare from the noise emanating therefrom”, 2. If the [fraternity] applicant can demonstrate that bringing the source of sound or activity into compliance with the noise ordinance “would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the [fraternity] applicant, on the community, or on other persons”, and 2 3. Must balance the denial [not being allowed to have an event that violates the noise ordinance] as a hardship on the applicant against (1) the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of other persons affected; (2) the adverse impact on property affected; and (3) any other adverse impacts of granting the exception [to allow a fraternity party to violate the noise ordinance]. I’m unsure what limitations cited in item 1. could prevent the neighbors from hearing an outdoor fraternity party with 100 people and/or amplified noise, especially at night when people are trying to sleep, and when the noise ordinance prohibits amplified noise from crossing the property line. Is it truly a “hardship” if the fraternity is not allowed to host an amplified event in a residential neighborhood that violates the noise ordinance? The fraternity representative said they will have at least 4 events over the next 9 months that will requi re Special Event Permits. The fraternity should host those events at a third-party venue so the people living nearby are able to sleep and be rested for work, school, or other life obligations. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly. How many events that violate the noise ordinance (considered by the SLOMC to be a public nuisance, detrimental to health, welfare, and safety, and contrary to public interest ) should the City’s neighborhoods endure? Another factor that isn’t mentioned is that sororities and other guests walk through the neighborhoods to attend these events. They yell, especially after they’ve been drinking, coming and going from the events and this goes on for hours. Fraternity parties impact the neighborhood beyond the fraternity house, itself. The “hardship” of living near a fraternity is borne by the neighbors who are kept awake by loud fraternity parties. There is no way to balance or mitigate the adverse impact for those living and working nearby. It is not reasonable to allow events within a residential neighborhood that violate the noise ordinance which, according to the City’s municipal code, is detrimental to people’s health, safety, and welfare and is a public nuisance. Our family is impacted by fraternities on Foothill Blvd. We can hear them from our house. At times we thought the noise was coming from a block over on Bond St or Hathway Ave because it was so loud, but upon locating the source of the noise, we found the party was at a fraternity on Foothill. A video link to one recent event at a fraternity on Foothill that could be heard from our house is included in my previous correspondence to the Planning Commission. I have attached my correspondence to this email. It took three responses from SLOPD to shut down the fraternity party on Foothill Blvd and officers had to call their sergeant to the scene because the fraternity refused to stop the disruptive party! I’ve wondered if there were any consequences to that fraternity, other than the noise citations. Our family needs to sleep due to work and other family obligations. If my husband can’t sleep, he cannot go to work because he has a safety-related job, and if he can’t work it affects our family’s income. Using the balancing factors cited by City staff, outlined in SLOMC 9.12.100, a “hardship” on a fraternity for not being able to host large parties with amplified noise in violation of the noise ordinance, does not outweigh the protection of the neighborhood and allowing people to sleep so they can go to work. I honestly can’t believe I have to say this because it seems like common sense. There are obvious blind spots within the City Administration when it comes to dealing with the “fraternity situation” overall, understanding/enforcing the noise they generate, and enforcing the existing CUPs for permitted fraternity houses that flout the law, even when a written complaint is made. There are also 70+ documented illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternity houses throughout the City’s neighborhoods, many operating as the main chapter houses for their fraternities, and they are still going strong a year after I gave a detailed report to Community Development with documentation of the fraternity locations, including fraternities' social media posts. Cal Poly’s AB 524 report also documented the address locations of fraternity events, which confirmed the social media documentation I provided in my report. The standard of proof required to cite these illegal fraternities is a “preponderance of the evidence” which means it is more likely than not. The documentation adequately met that burden, yet the fraternities continue to operate illegally at the addresses that were identified a year ago. Unfortunately, many of those addresses, including the main chapter houses of some fraternities, were not sent Notices of Viol ation or Advisory Letters. Some were, but even then, some Notices of Violation were missing dates, and many of the Advisory Letters were lost by the Community Development Department, so there is no physical record. I was asked to use the AskSLO app to make reports and did so, but most of the reports I made that specifically identified dates, times, and addresses of illegal fraternity events were not followed up on during the dates, times, and addresses provided to the Community Development Department so were dismissed as unfounded, even though the events occurred. The "fraternity situation" has been so disheartening. And now I am even more baffled after reading the City Staff's arguments AGAINST addition conditions to the fraternity's CUP which promotes wellness in the neighborhood. Is it because Community Development staff are already so overburdened that they don't want to take responsibility for enforcing the CUP? I can't think of 3 any other logical explanation to justify not having a threshold of violations that trigger a review of the CUP by the Planning Commission. Under the “exceptions” cited by City Staff that would allow the fraternity to violate the noise ordinance (9.12.100. A.2.), the municipal code also says, “Any individual who claims to be adversely affected by an allowance of the exception may file a statement with the noise control officer containing any information to support his or her claim. If at any time the noise control officer finds that a sufficient controversy exists regarding an application, a public hearing will be held.” How does “any individual” know that the fraternity has applied for an “exception” to host an event in violation of the noise ordinance? Are neighbors notified before the noise control officer grants the exception so they "have an opportunity file a statement with the noise control officer"? The Staff report says a Special Event Permit can only be approved with the three required findings listed in SLOMC 17.108.040. Finding 2 says the event “is consistent with or an improvement to the character of the neighborhood or zone.” A fraternity party does not improve the character of the neighborhood. Also, a fraternity is not allowed “by right” in an R-4 neighborhood. The CUP is meant to include conditions that mitigate the impact of fraternity use so that the fraternity house fits into the residential neighborhood, as a residence that is permitted to hold gatherings of up to a certain amount of people during certain hours. People of all demographics live in our neighborhood. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario that would be considered an improvement to the character of the neighborhood by allowing a fraternity event to violate the noise ordinance. Please limit Special Event Permits to allow an increase in occupancy limitations for events, and do not allow events to violate the City's noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood. Appeal Issue No. 3 – Limitation reverts to “residential occupancy” limit per condition 4 at night from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. The appeal also asks for a limitation on occupancy from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. based on the maximum allowed residential occupancy limitation listed in condition 4, which says “The fraternity shall be limited to a maximum of 24 residents for the property.” The Staff Response says that the condition cannot limit the type of people (residents vs. non-residents) but acknowledges that it is permissible to limit the number of people for the use. While the wording of the condition cannot list the limitation to residents, it is legal to limit the occupancy to 24 after 10 p.m. Condition 5 limits the number of people for “routine meetings and gatherings” to 48. The reason the limitation of persons on site after 10 p.m. is included in other fraternity CUPs and is requested here is that the noise generated by 48 people is much greater than the noise generated by 24 people. This is a residence in a residential neighborhood. The fraternity representative told the Planning Commission that gatherings happen outdoors, between the front and back houses. Noise generated by 48 people would violate the noise ordinance and disturb the neighbors. The primary concern about the fraternity’s use is noise. I know the noise ordinance isn’t that interesting but here are some main points: -The noise ordinance is a 24/7 regulation and prohibits a "noise disturbance" that is plainly audible 50 feet from the noisemaker. The dictionary defines a "noise disturbance" as the interruption of a settled and peaceful condition. -Amplified sound (television, radio, etc.) is prohibited from crossing the property line after 10 p.m. - Depending on the "character of sound", for example, if the noise contains music or speech, it cannot exceed 45 decibels across the property line after 10 p.m. for 30 minutes, which is equivalent to the sound level in a library. Noise that includes music or speech at 65 decibels is prohibited from crossing the property line, which is equivalent to the sound level of a normal conversation. These are the standards outlined in the City’s noise ordinance. There are free apps you can download on your phone that measure decibel levels and it’s surprising how “loud” everyday things are, such as a conversation, which can be disturbing at night when ambient noise levels are low and people nearby are trying to sleep. Limiting the number of people after 10 p.m. is consistent with the required findings per SLOMC 17.86.130, which is also cited in the Findings of the Draft Resolution and states “the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because conditions have been included that place limits on the number of persons allowed on site, restrict activities … and limit potential disturbances to neighboring properties.” Nighttime, after 10 p.m., is a sensitive time when most people are trying to sleep, and it is a reasonable condition to limit the number of people on the property to 24 from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Please add this condition to the fraternity’s CUP. Land Use and Housing Elements in the General Plan 4 The Findings in the Draft Resolution state that the project is consistent with the General Plan because “the project would facilitate Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5 and Housing Element Policy 8.6 (sic) by locating a fraternity in proximity to the Cal Poly SLO campus.” For context, the first sentence of Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5 states, “The City shall work with Cal Poly to develop a proposal to locate fraternities and sororities on campus for consideration by the CSU Board.” The secondary portion of the policy says, “If locations on campus cannot be provided, fraternities and sororities should be limited to medium-high and high-density residential areas near campus.” Please consider the intended meaning of this policy. Allowing more and more fraternities to overtake the residential neighborhoods does not further this policy. The first sentence of Housing Element Policy 8.5 says, “Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University campus. And secondarily, “Until that is possible, they should be located in medium-high to high-density residential zones near campus.” (Policy 8.6, referenced in the Draft Resolution, refers to Cal Poly staff housing and is not applicable here.) Again, the primary sentence in this policy is for fraternities to be located on campus, not in the City's neighborhoods. Allowing more fraternities in the City does not "facilitate" the intended meaning of these policies in the General Plan, as claimed in the Draft Resolution. Housing Element Program 8.15 says, “Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus fraternity/sorority living groups.” That portion of the General Plan was not included in the Draft Resolution. These Programs and Policies were adopted ten years ago, in 2014. What has the City done to further their implementation? The City’s General Plan recognizes that fraternities and sororities do not belong in the City and should be located on Cal Poly’s campus. The Planning Commissioners also said that fraternities should be on Cal Poly’s campus. Since Cal Poly does not have a Greek Row, the burden of housing the fraternities falls on the City and its neighborhoods. To mitigate the negative impacts of a fraternity in a residential neighborhood, a CUP must have conditions that specifically address relevant issues, and those conditions should be listed in the CUP so they are clear to the fraternity. Specific conditions that address common issues for a fraternity’s use should be included in the CUP to establish clear communication of the expectations and the consequences for the fraternity if they don’t adhere to the listed conditions. For instance, the following condition is included in other fraternity CUPs, which was requested in the appeal, and makes sense: “Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for the revocation of this permit.” The City Staff implies that the fraternity already has to follow this condition of use because it must follow Federal, State, and local laws and the obligation is listed throughout Chapter 17 of the SLOMC, so it doesn't need to be included as a condition. If it’s not listed as a condition in the CUP, how does the fraternity know that it’s a condition of use? Also, any written complaints, especially by community members, are based on the conditions outlined in the CUP. It's confusing if the condition is not specifically listed as a condition in the CUP. This condition and others suggested in the appeal, should be included in the CUP so the conditions are clear to the fraternity and the community. Finally, you might think that Lambda Chi Alpha would be on their best behavior in anticipation of this appeal. Cal Poly has only been in session for a month, so it seems simple: Don’t have loud parties that violate the noise ordinance and don’t have more t han the maximum occupancy of 48 as outlined in the CUP before the City Council hearing on 10/15/2024. But in the past few weeks, the fraternity has had multiple calls to SLOPD for noise. (None were made by me or my family.) During the first week of classes a call was made to SLOPD and the dispatcher noted in the log that the fraternity was partying in the front yard at 1264 Foothill with a sign that said, “YOU HONK, WE DRINK”. After that, there were at least two more loud parties at night and were issued noise citations at 1264 Foothill on 10/2/2024 and 10/9/2024. One citation lists 70 people at the party. 5 During the Planning Commission hearing, the Chair asked the fraternity representative, Thomas Symer, if Lambda Chi Alpha had any satellite houses that held fraternity events in the neighborhood. Mr. Symer said they did not. However, that isn’t true. Lambda Chi Alpha has at least five illegal fraternity houses in the Alta Vista neighborhood that held documented fraternity events during the last academic year, including at 171 Orange, 12 Hathway, 253 Albert, and 278 Albert. Mr. Symer’s name was listed as the person cited at a fraternity event at one of those addresses. Lambda Chi Alpha has continued to hold illegal fraternity events at those addresses during rush recruitment this academic year, for the past two weekends. The fraternity is not even pretending to care about the neighborhood even though they know their use permit is subject to a City Council hearing on 10/15/2024. This emphasizes the need for clear conditions in the CUP that outline the conditions/rules for and the consequences of the fraternity use. Conditions are necessary and also beneficial for the community and the fraternity because they clarify the expectations and mitigate the impact of use. As mentioned, a fraternity's use is not “by-right” in an R-4 zone. The reason a CUP is required - to set forth conditions to resolve the negative impacts - is so the fraternity house(s) fits into the R-4 zone as a residential use. I am baffled at the City’s resistance to strengthening the CUP for this large, impactful fraternity use. This CUP will be a model for other fraternity CUPs. It is critical that it contains meaningful conditions that make the fraternity’s obligations clear and mitigate its impact on the neighborhood. I urge you to uphold the appeal to add conditions to the fraternity CUP for the good of the neighborhood and the fraternity, so everyone knows what is expected because it’s listed as a condition in the CUP. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Sunday, October 13, 2024 7:50 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Item 6b on 10/15/2024: Appeal to Add Conditions to Fraternity Use Permit (Lambda Chi Alpha) Hi again Kathie. I can certainly understand that! My husband and I definitely don’t agree on everything either! 뇤눈눉눊눍눋눌 It is my understanding that the having a CUP does not make it so you are exempt from following the Municipal Code. That’s why staff, I think, do not see a reason to repetitiously not conditions in the CUP that are already part of Muni. Code. But, I can see from your email, and others that this is not necessarily clear in the staff response. I plan to ask some clarifying questions about that as well as about the special event permits. As I know you know, the property in question here, is also in an R-4 Zone. So, while it may not be terribly far from R-1 zoned-area, it has different rules that apply about density. It is my understanding that this is why a condition was added about notifying neighbors within 300 feet of the site. I know that I have had college neighbors in my neighborhood over the years as well, and I have always appreciated when they give me their contact info (which they are not really required to do, but it’s a “good neighbor” thing to do) so that I can reach out when things get too loud). The CUP essentially requires this, as written now. Thanks. I will look through Steven’s email as well and see if it has any other things I should ask about as well. Michelle From: kathie walker < > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 2:20 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Item 6b on 10/15/2024: Appeal to Add Conditions to Fraternity Use Permit (Lambda Chi Alpha) Hi Michelle, Yes, Steve is my husband. We don't necessarily agree on everything. lol "I read the full appeal document, and the new added language to the CUP that resulted from the Planning Commission Meeting. It appears that the team and Commission has addressed some of your concerns with their amendments. But, perhaps not all." The added language to the CUP implies that the fraternity can violate the noise ordinance if they get a Special Event Permit, and is asking for at least 4 events for this academic year. During the Planning Commission hearing, the Staff said that it is possible to get a permit that allows the fraternity to violate the noise ordinance. In the Staff's response to a condition that the fraternity not be allowed to violate the noise ordinance with a Special Event Permit, the Staff cites that it's allowed under SLOMC Section 9.12.100 in accordance with Section 17.86.260(B)(5) which specifically states that events can only be approved "with NO POTENTIAL to detrimentally affect those working and living in the vicinity". Staff also cites required findings listed in Section 17.108.040, including that the approved event is "consistent with or an improvement to the character of the neighborhood." Considering these factors and hurdles, it is impossible for the fraternity to overcome these requirements. The point made in my email is that it should not be listed as an option because it sets up expectations that the fraternity can get such permits when it is not possible if you consider what is required by the SLOMC. 2 On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 1:45 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, Thanks for the email. I read the full appeal document, and the new added language to the CUP that resulted from the Planning Commission Meeting. It appears that the team and Commission has addressed some of your concerns with their amendments. But, perhaps not all. Forgive me for being direct, but of all that you note below, can you please tell me some specific suggestions for what you would like changed about the current CUP that has not been addressed? Enforcement is something that we will continue, as you know, to work on regardless of the approval of this CUP or not. Especially at certain times of the year, there is no way for our “city eyes” to be everywhere at once, in a city of 48,000 residents. So, we will continue to rely on neighborhood members to report when bad things and disruptions when they are happening. Thank you. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 11:04 AM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Item 6b on 10/15/2024: Appeal to Add Conditions to Fraternity Use Permit (Lambda Chi Alpha) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Councilmembers, In June 2024, City Planner Hannah Hanh told me that the conditions of the CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha were based on the two most recent CUPs, which are for two sororities. Each has limited occupancy of 6 and 7 residents, respectively. Fraternity use is much different than sorority use because sororities don’t have parties with alcohol. Sororities go to fraternity houses to party, and fraternities have large parties with alcohol that are extremely disruptive to their neighbors. Even if the City considers sororities and fraternities as the same use, conditions must be added to the proposed CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha to mitigate the known, documented problems associated with noise and fraternity use. The municipal code states that violating the City’s noise ordinance is a public nuisance, is detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of others, and is contrary to public interest. On the other hand, the Staff Report claims that there are “exceptions” to the City’s noise ordinance that enable the Community Development Director to approve Special Event Permits, and such events are allowed to violate the City’s noise ordinance. 3 I can understand issuing a Special Event Permit to allow greater occupancy during certain hours of operation, such as during the day for an event, however allowing a permit to violate the noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood, especially at night, is not reasonable. The municipal code cited by Staff (SLOMC 9.12.100) says that any “exceptions” that allow violation of the noise ordinance can only be granted if all the following three conditions are met: 1. It is subject to limitations “appropriate to protect the public health, safety and welfare from the noise emanating therefrom”, 2. If the [fraternity] applicant can demonstrate that bringing the source of sound or activity into compliance with the noise ordinance “would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the [fraternity] applicant, on the community, or on other persons”, and 3. Must balance the denial [not being allowed to have an event that violates the noise ordinance] as a hardship on the applicant against (1) the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of other persons affected; (2) the adverse impact on property affected; and (3) any other adverse impacts of granting the exception [to allow a fraternity party to violate the noise ordinance]. I’m unsure what limitations cited in item 1. could prevent the neighbors from hearing an outdoor fraternity party with 100 people and/or amplified noise, especially at night when people are trying to sleep, and when the noise ordinance prohibits amplified noise from crossing the property line. Is it truly a “hardship” if the fraternity is not allowed to host an amplified event in a residential neighborhood that viola tes the noise ordinance? The fraternity representative said they will have at least 4 events over the next 9 months that will require Special Event Permits. The fraternity should host those events at a third-party venue so the people living nearby are able to sleep and be rested for work, school, or other life obligations. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly. How many events that violate the noise ordinance (considered by the SLOMC to be a public nuisance, detrimental to health, welfare, and safety, and contrary to public interest ) should the City’s neighborhoods endure? Another factor that isn’t mentioned is that sororities and other guests walk through the neighborhoods to attend these events. They yell, especially after they’ve been drinking, coming and going from the events and this goes on for hours. Fraternity parties impact the neighborhood beyond the fraternity house, itself. The “hardship” of living near a fraternity is borne by the neighbors who are kept awake by loud fraternity parties. There is no way to balance or mitigate the adverse impact for those living and working nearby. It is not reasonable to allow events within a residential neighborhood that violate the noise ordinance which, according to the City’s municipal code, is detrimental to pe ople’s health, safety, and welfare and is a public nuisance. Our family is impacted by fraternities on Foothill Blvd. We can hear them from our house. At times we thought the noise was coming from a block over on Bond St or Hathway Ave because it was so loud, but upon locating the source of the noise, we found the party was at a fraternity on Foothill. A video link to one recent event at a fraternity on Foothill that could be heard from our house is included in my previous correspondence to the Planning Commission. I have attached my correspondence to this email. It took three responses from SLOPD to shut down the fraternity party on Foothill Blvd and officers had to call their sergeant to the scene because the fraternity refused to stop the disruptive party! I’ve wondered if there were any consequences to that fraternity, other than the noise citations. Our family needs to sleep due to work and other family obligations. If my husband can’t sleep, he cannot go to work because he has a safety-related job, and if he can’t work it affects our family’s income. Using the balancing factors cited by City staff, o utlined in SLOMC 9.12.100, a “hardship” on a fraternity for not being able to host large parties with amplified noise in violation of the noise ordinance, does not outweigh the protection of the neighborhood and allowing people to sleep so they can go to work. I honestly can’t believe I have to say this because it seems like common sense. There are obvious blind spots within the City Administration when it comes to dealing with the “fraternity situation” overall, understanding/enforcing the noise they generate, and enforcing the existing CUPs for permitted fraternity houses that flout the law, even when a written complaint is made. There are also 70+ documented illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternity houses throughout the City’s neighborhoods, many operating as the main chapter houses for their fraternities, and they 4 are still going strong a year after I gave a detailed report to Community Development with documentation of the fraternity locations, including fraternities' social media posts. Cal Poly’s AB 524 report also documented the address locations of fraternity events, which confirmed the social media documentation I provided in my report. The standard of proof required to cite these illegal fraternities is a “preponderance of the evidence” which means it is more likely than not. The documentation adequately met that burden, yet the fraternities continue to operate illegally at the addresses that were identified a year ago. Unfortunately, many of those addresses, including the main chapter houses of some fraternities, were not sent Notices of Violation or Advisory Letters. Some were, but even then, some Notices of Violation were missing dates, and many of the Advisory Letters were lost by the Community Development Department, so there is no physical record. I was asked to use the AskSLO app to make reports and did so, but most of the reports I made that specifically identified dates, times, and addresses of illegal fraternity events were not followed up on during the dates, times, and addresses provided to the Community Development Department so were dismissed as unfounded, even though the events occurred. The "fraternity situation" has been so disheartening. And now I am even more baffled after reading the City Staff's arguments AGAINST addition conditions to the fraternity's CUP which promotes wellness in the neighborhood. Is it because Community Development staff are already so overburdened that they don't want to take responsibility for enforcing the CUP? I can't think of any other logical explanation to justify not having a threshold of violations that trigger a review of the CUP by the Planning Commission. Under the “exceptions” cited by City Staff that would allow the fraternity to violate the noise ordinance (9.12.100. A.2.), the municipal code also says, “Any individual who claims to be adversely affected by an allowance of the exception may file a statement with the noise control officer containing any information to support his or her claim. If at any time the noise control officer finds that a sufficient controversy exists regarding an application, a public hearing will be held.” How does “any individual” know that the fraternity has applied for an “exception” to host an event in violation of the noise ordinance? Are neighbors notified before the noise control officer grants the exception so they "have an opportunity file a statement with the noise control officer"? The Staff report says a Special Event Permit can only be approved with the three required findings listed in SLOMC 17.108.040. Finding 2 says the event “is consistent with or an improvement to the character of the neighborhood or zone.” A fraternity party does not improve the character of the neighborhood. Also, a fraternity is not allowed “by right” in an R-4 neighborhood. The CUP is meant to include conditions that mitigate the impact of fraternity use so that the fraternity house fits into the residential neighborhood, as a residence that is permitted to hold gatherings of up to a certain amount of people during certain hours. People of all demographics live in our neighborhood. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario that would be considered an improvement to the character of the neighborhood by allowing a fraternity event to violate the noise ordinance. Please limit Special Event Permits to allow an increase in occupancy limitations for events, and do not allow events to violate the City's noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood. Appeal Issue No. 3 – Limitation reverts to “residential occupancy” limit per condition 4 at night from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. The appeal also asks for a limitation on occupancy from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. based on the maximum allowed residential occupancy limitation listed in condition 4, which says “The fraternity shall be limited to a maximum of 24 residents for the property.” The Staff Response says that the condition cannot limit the type of people (residents vs. non-residents) but acknowledges that it is permissible to limit the number of people for the use. While the wording of the condition cannot list the limitation to residents, it is legal to limit the occupancy to 24 after 10 p.m. Condition 5 limits the number of people for “routine meetings and gatherings” to 48. The reason the limitation of persons on site after 10 p.m. is included in other fraternity CUPs and is requested here is that the noise generated by 48 people is much greater than the noise generated by 24 people. This is a residence in a residential neighborhood. The fraternity representative told the Planning Commission that gatherings happen outdoors, between the front and back houses. Noise generated by 48 people would violate the noise ordinance and disturb the neighbors. 5 The primary concern about the fraternity’s use is noise. I know the noise ordinance isn’t that interesting but here are some main points: -The noise ordinance is a 24/7 regulation and prohibits a "noise disturbance" that is plainly audible 50 feet from the noisemaker. The dictionary defines a "noise disturbance" as the interruption of a settled and peaceful condition. -Amplified sound (television, radio, etc.) is prohibited from crossing the property line after 10 p.m. - Depending on the "character of sound", for example, if the noise contains music or speech, it cannot exceed 45 decibels acros s the property line after 10 p.m. for 30 minutes, which is equivalent to the sound level in a library. Noise that includes music or speech at 65 decibels is prohibited from crossing the property line, which is equivalent to the sound level of a normal conversation. These are the standards outlined in the City’s noise ordinance. There are free apps you can download on your phone that measure decibel levels and it’s surprising how “loud” everyday things are, such as a conversation, which can be disturbing at night when ambient noise levels are low and people nearby are trying to sleep. Limiting the number of people after 10 p.m. is consistent with the required findings per SLOMC 17.86.130, which is also cited in the Findings of the Draft Resolution and states “the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because conditions have been included that place limits on the number of persons allowed on site, restrict activities … and limit potential disturbances to neighboring properties.” Nighttime, after 10 p.m., is a sensitive time when most people are trying to sleep, and it is a reasonable condition to limit the number of people on the property to 24 from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Please add this condition to the fraternity’s CUP. Land Use and Housing Elements in the General Plan The Findings in the Draft Resolution state that the project is consistent with the General Plan because “the project would facilitate Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5 and Housing Element Policy 8.6 (sic) by locating a fraternity in proximity to the Cal Poly SLO campus.” For context, the first sentence of Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5 states, “The City shall work with Cal Poly to develop a proposal to locate fraternities and sororities on campus for consideration by the CSU Board.” The secondary portion of the policy says, “If locations on campus cannot be provided, fraternities and sororities should be limited to medium-high and high-density residential areas near campus.” Please consider the intended meaning of this policy. Allowing more and more fraternities to overtake the residential neighborhoods does not further this policy. The first sentence of Housing Element Policy 8.5 says, “Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University campus . And secondarily, “Until that is possible, they should be located in medium-high to high-density residential zones near campus.” (Policy 8.6, referenced in the Draft Resolution, refers to Cal Poly staff housing and is not applicable here.) Again, the primary sentence in this policy is for fraternities to be located on campus, not in the City's neighborhoods. Allowing more fraternities in the City does not "facilitate" the intended meaning of these policies in the General Plan, as claimed in the Draft Resolution. Housing Element Program 8.15 says, “Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus fraternity/sorority living groups.” That portion of the General Plan was not included in the Draft Resolution. These Programs and Policies were adopted ten years ago, in 2014. What has the City done to further their implementation? The City’s General Plan recognizes that fraternities and sororities do not belong in the City and should be located on Cal Poly’s campus. The Planning Commissioners also said that fraternities should be on Cal Poly’s campus. Since Cal Poly does not have a Greek Row, the burden of housing the fraternities falls on the City and its neighborhoods. To mitigate the negative impacts of a fraternity in a residential neighborhood, a CUP must have conditions that specifically address relevant issues, and those conditions should be listed in the CUP so they are clear to the fraternity. Specific conditions that address common issues for a fraternity’s use should be included in the CUP to establish clear communication of the 6 expectations and the consequences for the fraternity if they don’t adhere to the listed conditions. For instance, the following condition is included in other fraternity CUPs, which was requested in the appeal, and makes sense: “Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, s afety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for the revocation of this permit.” The City Staff implies that the fraternity already has to follow this condition of use because it must follow Federal, State, and local laws and the obligation is listed throughout Chapter 17 of the SLOMC, so it doesn't need to be included as a condition. If it’s not listed as a condition in the CUP, how does the fraternity know that it’s a condition of use? Also, any written complaints, es pecially by community members, are based on the conditions outlined in the CUP. It's confusing if the condition is not specifically listed as a condition in the CUP. This condition and others suggested in the appeal, should be included in the CUP so the conditions are clear to the fraternit y and the community. Finally, you might think that Lambda Chi Alpha would be on their best behavior in anticipation of this appeal. Cal Poly has only been in session for a month, so it seems simple: Don’t have loud parties that violate the noise ordinance and don’t have more than the maximum occupancy of 48 as outlined in the CUP before the City Council hearing on 10/15/2024. But in the past few weeks, the fraternity has had multiple calls to SLOPD for noise. (None were made by me or my family.) During the first week of classes a call was made to SLOPD and the dispatcher noted in the log that the fraternity was partying in the front yard at 1264 Foothill with a sign that said, “YOU HONK, WE DRINK”. After that, there were at least two more loud parties at night and were issued noise citations at 1264 Foothill on 10/2/2024 and 10/9/2024. One citation lists 70 people at the party. During the Planning Commission hearing, the Chair asked the fraternity representative, Thomas Symer, if Lambda Chi Alpha had any satellite houses that held fraternity events in the neighborhood. Mr. Symer said they did not. However, that isn’t true. Lambda Chi Alpha has at least five illegal fraternity houses in the Alta Vista neighborhood that held documented fraternity events during the last academic year, including at 171 Orange, 12 Hathway, 253 Albert, and 278 Albert. Mr. Symer’s name was listed as the person cited at a fraternity event at one of those addresses. Lambda Chi Alpha has continued to hold illegal fraternity events at those addresses during rush recruitment this academic year, for the past two weekends. 7 The fraternity is not even pretending to care about the neighborhood even though they know their use permit is subject to a City Council hearing on 10/15/2024. This emphasizes the need for clear conditions in the CUP that outline the conditions/rules for a nd the consequences of the fraternity use. Conditions are necessary and also beneficial for the community and the fraternity because they clarify the expectations and mitigate the impact of use. As mentioned, a fraternity's use is not “by-right” in an R-4 zone. The reason a CUP is required - to set forth conditions to resolve the negative impacts - is so the fraternity house(s) fits into the R-4 zone as a residential use. I am baffled at the City’s resistance to strengthening the CUP for this large, impactful fraternity use. This CUP will be a model for other fraternity CUPs. It is critical that it contains meaningful conditions that make the fraternity’s obligations clear and mitigate its impact on the neighborhood. I urge you to uphold the appeal to add conditions to the fraternity CUP for the good of the neighborhood and the fraternity, so everyone knows what is expected because it’s listed as a condition in the CUP. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Monday, October 14, 2024 10:49 AM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Item 6b on 10/15/2024: Appeal to Add Conditions to Fraternity Use Permit (Lambda Chi Alpha) Hi Kathie, My apologies for uploading the incorrect email. I have uploaded the correct email to the public archive for tomorrow’s City Council 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: kathie walker < > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 11:04 AM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Item 6b on 10/15/2024: Appeal to Add Conditions to Fraternity Use Permit (Lambda Chi Alpha) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Councilmembers, In June 2024, City Planner Hannah Hanh told me that the conditions of the CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha were based on the two most recent CUPs, which are for two sororities. Each has limited occupancy of 6 and 7 residents, respectively. Fraternity use is much different than sorority use because sororities don’t have parties with alcohol. Sororities go to fraternity houses to party, and fraternities have large parties with alcohol that are extremely disruptive to their neighbors. Even if the City considers sororities and fraternities as the same use, conditions must be added to the proposed CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha to mitigate the known, documented problems associated with noise and fraternity use. The municipal code states that violating the City’s noise ordinance is a public nuisance, is detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of others, and is contrary to public interest. On the other hand, the Staff Report claims that there are “exceptions” to the City’s noise ordinance that enable the Community Development Director to approve Special Event Permits, and such events are allowed to violate the City’s noise ordinance. 2 I can understand issuing a Special Event Permit to allow greater occupancy during certain hours of operation, such as during the day for an event, however allowing a permit to violate the noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood, especially at night, is not reasonable. The municipal code cited by Staff (SLOMC 9.12.100) says that any “exceptions” that allow violation of the noise ordinance can only be granted if all the following three conditions are met: 1. It is subject to limitations “appropriate to protect the public health, safety and welfare from the noise emanating therefrom”, 2. If the [fraternity] applicant can demonstrate that bringing the source of sound or activity into compliance with the noise ordinance “would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the [fraternity] applicant, on the community, or on other persons”, and 3. Must balance the denial [not being allowed to have an event that violates the noise ordinance] as a hardship on the applicant against (1) the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of other persons affected; (2) the adverse impact on property affected; and (3) any other adverse impacts of granting the exception [to allow a fraternity party to violate the noise ordinance]. I’m unsure what limitations cited in item 1. could prevent the neighbors from hearing an outdoor fraternity party with 100 people and/or amplified noise, especially at night when people are trying to sleep, and when the noise ordinance prohibits amplified noise from crossing the property line. Is it truly a “hardship” if the fraternity is not allowed to host an amplified event in a residential neighborhood that violates the noise ordinance? The fraternity representative said they will have at least 4 events over the next 9 months that will requi re Special Event Permits. The fraternity should host those events at a third-party venue so the people living nearby are able to sleep and be rested for work, school, or other life obligations. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly. How many events that violate the noise ordinance (considered by the SLOMC to be a public nuisance, detrimental to health, welfare, and safety, and contrary to public interest ) should the City’s neighborhoods endure? Another factor that isn’t mentioned is that sororities and other guests walk through the neighborhoods to attend these events. They yell, especially after they’ve been drinking, coming and going from the events and this goes on for hours. Fraternity parties impact the neighborhood beyond the fraternity house, itself. The “hardship” of living near a fraternity is borne by the neighbors who are kept awake by loud fraternity parties. There is no way to balance or mitigate the adverse impact for those living and working nearby. It is not reasonable to allow events within a residential neighborhood that violate the noise ordinance which, according to the City’s municipal code, is detrimental to people’s health, safety, and welfare and is a public nuisance. Our family is impacted by fraternities on Foothill Blvd. We can hear them from our house. At times we thought the noise was coming from a block over on Bond St or Hathway Ave because it was so loud, but upon locating the source of the noise, we found the party was at a fraternity on Foothill. A video link to one recent event at a fraternity on Foothill that could be heard from our house is included in my previous correspondence to the Planning Commission. I have attached my correspondence to this email. It took three responses from SLOPD to shut down the fraternity party on Foothill Blvd and officers had to call their sergeant to the scene because the fraternity refused to stop the disruptive party! I’ve wondered if there were any consequences to that fraternity, other than the noise citations. Our family needs to sleep due to work and other family obligations. If my husband can’t sleep, he cannot go to work because he has a safety-related job, and if he can’t work it affects our family’s income. Using the balancing factors cited by City staff, outlined in SLOMC 9.12.100, a “hardship” on a fraternity for not being able to host large parties with amplified noise in violation of the noise ordinance, does not outweigh the protection of the neighborhood and allowing people to sleep so they can go to work. I honestly can’t believe I have to say this because it seems like common sense. There are obvious blind spots within the City Administration when it comes to dealing with the “fraternity situation” overall, understanding/enforcing the noise they generate, and enforcing the existing CUPs for permitted fraternity houses that flout the law, even when a written complaint is made. There are also 70+ documented illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternity houses throughout the City’s neighborhoods, many operating as the main chapter houses for their fraternities, and they are still going strong a year after I gave a detailed report to Community Development with documentation of the fraternity locations, including fraternities' social media posts. Cal Poly’s AB 524 report also documented the address locations of fraternity events, which confirmed the social media documentation I provided in my report. The standard of proof required to cite these illegal fraternities is a “preponderance of the evidence” which means it is more likely than not. The documentation adequately met that burden, yet the fraternities continue to operate illegally at the addresses that were identified a year ago. 3 Unfortunately, many of those addresses, including the main chapter houses of some fraternities, were not sent Notices of Viol ation or Advisory Letters. Some were, but even then, some Notices of Violation were missing dates, and many of the Advisory Letters were lost by the Community Development Department, so there is no physical record. I was asked to use the AskSLO app to make reports and did so, but most of the reports I made that specifically identified dates, times, and addresses of illegal fraternity events were not followed up on during the dates, times, and addresses provided to the Community Development Department so were dismissed as unfounded, even though the events occurred. The "fraternity situation" has been so disheartening. And now I am even more baffled after reading the City Staff's arguments AGAINST addition conditions to the fraternity's CUP which promotes wellness in the neighborhood. Is it because Community Development staff are already so overburdened that they don't want to take responsibility for enforcing the CUP? I can't think of any other logical explanation to justify not having a threshold of violations that trigger a review of the CUP by the Planning Commission. Under the “exceptions” cited by City Staff that would allow the fraternity to violate the noise ordinance (9.12.100. A.2.), the municipal code also says, “Any individual who claims to be adversely affected by an allowance of the exception may file a statement with the noise control officer containing any information to support his or her claim. If at any time the noise control officer finds that a sufficient controversy exists regarding an application, a public hearing will be held.” How does “any individual” know that the fraternity has applied for an “exception” to host an event in violation of the noise ordinance? Are neighbors notified before the noise control officer grants the exception so they "have an opportunity file a statement with the noise control officer"? The Staff report says a Special Event Permit can only be approved with the three required findings listed in SLOMC 17.108.040. Finding 2 says the event “is consistent with or an improvement to the character of the neighborhood or zone.” A fraternity party does not improve the character of the neighborhood. Also, a fraternity is not allowed “by right” in an R-4 neighborhood. The CUP is meant to include conditions that mitigate the impact of fraternity use so that the fraternity house fits into the residential neighborhood, as a residence that is permitted to hold gatherings of up to a certain amount of people during certain hours. People of all demographics live in our neighborhood. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario that would be considered an improvement to the character of the neighborhood by allowing a fraternity event to violate the noise ordinance. Please limit Special Event Permits to allow an increase in occupancy limitations for events, and do not allow events to violate the City's noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood. Appeal Issue No. 3 – Limitation reverts to “residential occupancy” limit per condition 4 at night from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. The appeal also asks for a limitation on occupancy from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. based on the maximum allowed residential occupancy limitation listed in condition 4, which says “The fraternity shall be limited to a maximum of 24 residents for the property.” The Staff Response says that the condition cannot limit the type of people (residents vs. non-residents) but acknowledges that it is permissible to limit the number of people for the use. While the wording of the condition cannot list the limitation to residents, it is legal to limit the occupancy to 24 after 10 p.m. Condition 5 limits the number of people for “routine meetings and gatherings” to 48. The reason the limitation of persons on site after 10 p.m. is included in other fraternity CUPs and is requested here is that the noise generated by 48 people is much greater than the noise generated by 24 people. This is a residence in a residential neighborhood. The fraternity representative told the Planning Commission that gatherings happen outdoors, between the front and back houses. Noise generated by 48 people would violate the noise ordinance and disturb the neighbors. The primary concern about the fraternity’s use is noise. I know the noise ordinance isn’t that interesting but here are some main points: -The noise ordinance is a 24/7 regulation and prohibits a "noise disturbance" that is plainly audible 50 feet from the noisemaker. The dictionary defines a "noise disturbance" as the interruption of a settled and peaceful condition. -Amplified sound (television, radio, etc.) is prohibited from crossing the property line after 10 p.m. - Depending on the "character of sound", for example, if the noise contains music or speech, it cannot exceed 45 decibels across the property line after 10 p.m. for 30 minutes, which is equivalent to the sound level in a library. Noise that includes music or speech at 65 decibels is prohibited from crossing the property line, which is equivalent to the sound level of a normal conversation. These are the standards outlined in the City’s noise ordinance. There are free apps you can download on your phone that measure decibel levels and it’s surprising how “loud” everyday things are, such as a conversation, which can be disturbing at night when ambient noise levels are low and people nearby are trying to sleep. 4 Limiting the number of people after 10 p.m. is consistent with the required findings per SLOMC 17.86.130, which is also cited in the Findings of the Draft Resolution and states “the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because conditions have been included that place limits on the number of persons allowed on site, restrict activities … and limit potential disturbances to neighboring properties.” Nighttime, after 10 p.m., is a sensitive time when most people are trying to sleep, and it is a reasonable condition to limit the number of people on the property to 24 from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Please add this condition to the fraternity’s CUP. Land Use and Housing Elements in the General Plan The Findings in the Draft Resolution state that the project is consistent with the General Plan because “the project would facilitate Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5 and Housing Element Policy 8.6 (sic) by locating a fraternity in proximity to the Cal Poly SLO campus.” For context, the first sentence of Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5 states, “The City shall work with Cal Poly to develop a proposal to locate fraternities and sororities on campus for consideration by the CSU Board.” The secondary portion of the policy says, “If locations on campus cannot be provided, fraternities and sororities should be limited to medium-high and high-density residential areas near campus.” Please consider the intended meaning of this policy. Allowing more and more fraternities to overtake the residential neighborhoods does not further this policy. The first sentence of Housing Element Policy 8.5 says, “Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University campus. And secondarily, “Until that is possible, they should be located in medium-high to high-density residential zones near campus.” (Policy 8.6, referenced in the Draft Resolution, refers to Cal Poly staff housing and is not applicable here.) Again, the primary sentence in this policy is for fraternities to be located on campus, not in the City's neighborhoods. Allowing more fraternities in the City does not "facilitate" the intended meaning of these policies in the General Plan, as claimed in the Draft Resolution. Housing Element Program 8.15 says, “Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus fraternity/sorority living groups.” That portion of the General Plan was not included in the Draft Resolution. These Programs and Policies were adopted ten years ago, in 2014. What has the City done to further their implementation? The City’s General Plan recognizes that fraternities and sororities do not belong in the City and should be located on Cal Poly’s campus. The Planning Commissioners also said that fraternities should be on Cal Poly’s campus. Since Cal Poly does not have a Greek Row, the burden of housing the fraternities falls on the City and its neighborhoods. To mitigate the negative impacts of a fraternity in a residential neighborhood, a CUP must have conditions that specifically address relevant issues, and those conditions should be listed in the CUP so they are clear to the fraternity. Specific conditions that address common issues for a fraternity’s use should be included in the CUP to establish clear communication of the expectations and the consequences for the fraternity if they don’t adhere to the listed conditions. For instance, the following condition is included in other fraternity CUPs, which was requested in the appeal, and makes sense: “Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for the revocation of this permit.” The City Staff implies that the fraternity already has to follow this condition of use because it must follow Federal, State, and local laws and the obligation is listed throughout Chapter 17 of the SLOMC, so it doesn't need to be included as a condition. If it’s not listed as a condition in the CUP, how does the fraternity know that it’s a condition of use? Also, any written complaints, especially by community members, are based on the conditions outlined in the CUP. It's confusing if the condition is not specifically listed as a condition in the CUP. This condition and others suggested in the appeal, should be included in the CUP so the conditions are clear to the fraternity and the community. Finally, you might think that Lambda Chi Alpha would be on their best behavior in anticipation of this appeal. Cal Poly has only been in session for a month, so it seems simple: Don’t have loud parties that violate the noise ordinance and don’t have more t han the maximum occupancy of 48 as outlined in the CUP before the City Council hearing on 10/15/2024. But in the past few weeks, the fraternity has had multiple calls to SLOPD for noise. (None were made by me or my family.) During the first week of classes a call was made to SLOPD and the dispatcher noted in the log that the fraternity was partying in the front yard at 1264 Foothill with a sign that said, “YOU HONK, WE DRINK”. 5 After that, there were at least two more loud parties at night and were issued noise citations at 1264 Foothill on 10/2/2024 and 10/9/2024. One citation lists 70 people at the party. During the Planning Commission hearing, the Chair asked the fraternity representative, Thomas Symer, if Lambda Chi Alpha had any satellite houses that held fraternity events in the neighborhood. Mr. Symer said they did not. However, that isn’t true. Lambda Chi Alpha has at least five illegal fraternity houses in the Alta Vista neighborhood that held documented fraternity events during the last academic year, including at 171 Orange, 12 Hathway, 253 Albert, and 278 Albert. Mr. Symer’s name was listed as the person cited at a fraternity event at one of those addresses. Lambda Chi Alpha has continued to hold illegal fraternity events at those addresses during rush recruitment this academic year, for the past two weekends. The fraternity is not even pretending to care about the neighborhood even though they know their use permit is subject to a City Council hearing on 10/15/2024. This emphasizes the need for clear conditions in the CUP that outline the conditions/rules for and the consequences of the fraternity use. Conditions are necessary and also beneficial for the community and the fraternity because they clarify the expectations and mitigate the impact of use. As mentioned, a fraternity's use is not “by-right” in an R-4 zone. The reason a CUP is required - to set forth conditions to resolve the negative impacts - is so the fraternity house(s) fits into the R-4 zone as a residential use. I am baffled at the City’s resistance to strengthening the CUP for this large, impactful fraternity use. This CUP will be a model for other fraternity CUPs. It is critical that it contains meaningful conditions that make the fraternity’s obligations clear and mitigate its impact on the neighborhood. I urge you to uphold the appeal to add conditions to the fraternity CUP for the good of the neighborhood and the fraternity, so everyone knows what is expected because it’s listed as a condition in the CUP. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Monday, October 14, 2024 8:34 AM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Item 6b on 10/15/2024: Appeal to Add Conditions to Fraternity Use Permit (Lambda Chi Alpha) Hi Kathie, 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: kathie walker < > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 11:04 AM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Item 6b on 10/15/2024: Appeal to Add Conditions to Fraternity Use Permit (Lambda Chi Alpha) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Councilmembers, In June 2024, City Planner Hannah Hanh told me that the conditions of the CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha were based on the two most recent CUPs, which are for two sororities. Each has limited occupancy of 6 and 7 residents, respectively. Fraternity use is much different than sorority use because sororities don’t have parties with alcohol. Sororities go to fraternity houses to party, and fraternities have large parties with alcohol that are extremely disruptive to their neighbors. Even if the City considers sororities and fraternities as the same use, conditions must be added to the proposed CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha to mitigate the known, documented problems associated with noise and fraternity use. The municipal code states that violating the City’s noise ordinance is a public nuisance, is detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of others, and is contrary to public interest. On the other hand, the Staff Report claims that there are “exceptions” to the City’s noise ordinance that enable the Community Development Director to approve Special Event Permits, and such events are allowed to violate the City’s noise ordinance. 2 I can understand issuing a Special Event Permit to allow greater occupancy during certain hours of operation, such as during the day for an event, however allowing a permit to violate the noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood, especially at night, is not reasonable. The municipal code cited by Staff (SLOMC 9.12.100) says that any “exceptions” that allow violation of the noise ordinance can only be granted if all the following three conditions are met: 1. It is subject to limitations “appropriate to protect the public health, safety and welfare from the noise emanating therefrom”, 2. If the [fraternity] applicant can demonstrate that bringing the source of sound or activity into compliance with the noise ordinance “would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the [fraternity] applicant, on the community, or on other persons”, and 3. Must balance the denial [not being allowed to have an event that violates the noise ordinance] as a hardship on the applicant against (1) the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of other persons affected; (2) the adverse impact on property affected; and (3) any other adverse impacts of granting the exception [to allow a fraternity party to violate the noise ordinance]. I’m unsure what limitations cited in item 1. could prevent the neighbors from hearing an outdoor fraternity party with 100 people and/or amplified noise, especially at night when people are trying to sleep, and when the noise ordinance prohibits amplified noise from crossing the property line. Is it truly a “hardship” if the fraternity is not allowed to host an amplified event in a residential neighborhood that violates the noise ordinance? The fraternity representative said they will have at least 4 events over the next 9 months that will requi re Special Event Permits. The fraternity should host those events at a third-party venue so the people living nearby are able to sleep and be rested for work, school, or other life obligations. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly. How many events that violate the noise ordinance (considered by the SLOMC to be a public nuisance, detrimental to health, welfare, and safety, and contrary to public interest ) should the City’s neighborhoods endure? Another factor that isn’t mentioned is that sororities and other guests walk through the neighborhoods to attend these events. They yell, especially after they’ve been drinking, coming and going from the events and this goes on for hours. Fraternity parties impact the neighborhood beyond the fraternity house, itself. The “hardship” of living near a fraternity is borne by the neighbors who are kept awake by loud fraternity parties. There is no way to balance or mitigate the adverse impact for those living and working nearby. It is not reasonable to allow events within a residential neighborhood that violate the noise ordinance which, according to the City’s municipal code, is detrimental to people’s health, safety, and welfare and is a public nuisance. Our family is impacted by fraternities on Foothill Blvd. We can hear them from our house. At times we thought the noise was coming from a block over on Bond St or Hathway Ave because it was so loud, but upon locating the source of the noise, we found the party was at a fraternity on Foothill. A video link to one recent event at a fraternity on Foothill that could be heard from our house is included in my previous correspondence to the Planning Commission. I have attached my correspondence to this email. It took three responses from SLOPD to shut down the fraternity party on Foothill Blvd and officers had to call their sergeant to the scene because the fraternity refused to stop the disruptive party! I’ve wondered if there were any consequences to that fraternity, other than the noise citations. Our family needs to sleep due to work and other family obligations. If my husband can’t sleep, he cannot go to work because he has a safety-related job, and if he can’t work it affects our family’s income. Using the balancing factors cited by City staff, outlined in SLOMC 9.12.100, a “hardship” on a fraternity for not being able to host large parties with amplified noise in violation of the noise ordinance, does not outweigh the protection of the neighborhood and allowing people to sleep so they can go to work. I honestly can’t believe I have to say this because it seems like common sense. There are obvious blind spots within the City Administration when it comes to dealing with the “fraternity situation” overall, understanding/enforcing the noise they generate, and enforcing the existing CUPs for permitted fraternity houses that flout the law, even when a written complaint is made. There are also 70+ documented illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternity houses throughout the City’s neighborhoods, many operating as the main chapter houses for their fraternities, and they are still going strong a year after I gave a detailed report to Community Development with documentation of the fraternity locations, including fraternities' social media posts. Cal Poly’s AB 524 report also documented the address locations of fraternity events, which confirmed the social media documentation I provided in my report. The standard of proof required to cite these illegal fraternities is a “preponderance of the evidence” which means it is more likely than not. The documentation adequately met that burden, yet the fraternities continue to operate illegally at the addresses that were identified a year ago. 3 Unfortunately, many of those addresses, including the main chapter houses of some fraternities, were not sent Notices of Viol ation or Advisory Letters. Some were, but even then, some Notices of Violation were missing dates, and many of the Advisory Letters were lost by the Community Development Department, so there is no physical record. I was asked to use the AskSLO app to make reports and did so, but most of the reports I made that specifically identified dates, times, and addresses of illegal fraternity events were not followed up on during the dates, times, and addresses provided to the Community Development Department so were dismissed as unfounded, even though the events occurred. The "fraternity situation" has been so disheartening. And now I am even more baffled after reading the City Staff's arguments AGAINST addition conditions to the fraternity's CUP which promotes wellness in the neighborhood. Is it because Community Development staff are already so overburdened that they don't want to take responsibility for enforcing the CUP? I can't think of any other logical explanation to justify not having a threshold of violations that trigger a review of the CUP by the Planning Commission. Under the “exceptions” cited by City Staff that would allow the fraternity to violate the noise ordinance (9.12.100. A.2.), the municipal code also says, “Any individual who claims to be adversely affected by an allowance of the exception may file a statement with the noise control officer containing any information to support his or her claim. If at any time the noise control officer finds that a sufficient controversy exists regarding an application, a public hearing will be held.” How does “any individual” know that the fraternity has applied for an “exception” to host an event in violation of the noise ordinance? Are neighbors notified before the noise control officer grants the exception so they "have an opportunity file a statement with the noise control officer"? The Staff report says a Special Event Permit can only be approved with the three required findings listed in SLOMC 17.108.040. Finding 2 says the event “is consistent with or an improvement to the character of the neighborhood or zone.” A fraternity party does not improve the character of the neighborhood. Also, a fraternity is not allowed “by right” in an R-4 neighborhood. The CUP is meant to include conditions that mitigate the impact of fraternity use so that the fraternity house fits into the residential neighborhood, as a residence that is permitted to hold gatherings of up to a certain amount of people during certain hours. People of all demographics live in our neighborhood. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario that would be considered an improvement to the character of the neighborhood by allowing a fraternity event to violate the noise ordinance. Please limit Special Event Permits to allow an increase in occupancy limitations for events, and do not allow events to violate the City's noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood. Appeal Issue No. 3 – Limitation reverts to “residential occupancy” limit per condition 4 at night from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. The appeal also asks for a limitation on occupancy from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. based on the maximum allowed residential occupancy limitation listed in condition 4, which says “The fraternity shall be limited to a maximum of 24 residents for the property.” The Staff Response says that the condition cannot limit the type of people (residents vs. non-residents) but acknowledges that it is permissible to limit the number of people for the use. While the wording of the condition cannot list the limitation to residents, it is legal to limit the occupancy to 24 after 10 p.m. Condition 5 limits the number of people for “routine meetings and gatherings” to 48. The reason the limitation of persons on site after 10 p.m. is included in other fraternity CUPs and is requested here is that the noise generated by 48 people is much greater than the noise generated by 24 people. This is a residence in a residential neighborhood. The fraternity representative told the Planning Commission that gatherings happen outdoors, between the front and back houses. Noise generated by 48 people would violate the noise ordinance and disturb the neighbors. The primary concern about the fraternity’s use is noise. I know the noise ordinance isn’t that interesting but here are some main points: -The noise ordinance is a 24/7 regulation and prohibits a "noise disturbance" that is plainly audible 50 feet from the noisemaker. The dictionary defines a "noise disturbance" as the interruption of a settled and peaceful condition. -Amplified sound (television, radio, etc.) is prohibited from crossing the property line after 10 p.m. - Depending on the "character of sound", for example, if the noise contains music or speech, it cannot exceed 45 decibels across the property line after 10 p.m. for 30 minutes, which is equivalent to the sound level in a library. Noise that includes music or speech at 65 decibels is prohibited from crossing the property line, which is equivalent to the sound level of a normal conversation. These are the standards outlined in the City’s noise ordinance. There are free apps you can download on your phone that measure decibel levels and it’s surprising how “loud” everyday things are, such as a conversation, which can be disturbing at night when ambient noise levels are low and people nearby are trying to sleep. 4 Limiting the number of people after 10 p.m. is consistent with the required findings per SLOMC 17.86.130, which is also cited in the Findings of the Draft Resolution and states “the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because conditions have been included that place limits on the number of persons allowed on site, restrict activities … and limit potential disturbances to neighboring properties.” Nighttime, after 10 p.m., is a sensitive time when most people are trying to sleep, and it is a reasonable condition to limit the number of people on the property to 24 from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Please add this condition to the fraternity’s CUP. Land Use and Housing Elements in the General Plan The Findings in the Draft Resolution state that the project is consistent with the General Plan because “the project would facilitate Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5 and Housing Element Policy 8.6 (sic) by locating a fraternity in proximity to the Cal Poly SLO campus.” For context, the first sentence of Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5 states, “The City shall work with Cal Poly to develop a proposal to locate fraternities and sororities on campus for consideration by the CSU Board.” The secondary portion of the policy says, “If locations on campus cannot be provided, fraternities and sororities should be limited to medium-high and high-density residential areas near campus.” Please consider the intended meaning of this policy. Allowing more and more fraternities to overtake the residential neighborhoods does not further this policy. The first sentence of Housing Element Policy 8.5 says, “Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University campus. And secondarily, “Until that is possible, they should be located in medium-high to high-density residential zones near campus.” (Policy 8.6, referenced in the Draft Resolution, refers to Cal Poly staff housing and is not applicable here.) Again, the primary sentence in this policy is for fraternities to be located on campus, not in the City's neighborhoods. Allowing more fraternities in the City does not "facilitate" the intended meaning of these policies in the General Plan, as claimed in the Draft Resolution. Housing Element Program 8.15 says, “Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus fraternity/sorority living groups.” That portion of the General Plan was not included in the Draft Resolution. These Programs and Policies were adopted ten years ago, in 2014. What has the City done to further their implementation? The City’s General Plan recognizes that fraternities and sororities do not belong in the City and should be located on Cal Poly’s campus. The Planning Commissioners also said that fraternities should be on Cal Poly’s campus. Since Cal Poly does not have a Greek Row, the burden of housing the fraternities falls on the City and its neighborhoods. To mitigate the negative impacts of a fraternity in a residential neighborhood, a CUP must have conditions that specifically address relevant issues, and those conditions should be listed in the CUP so they are clear to the fraternity. Specific conditions that address common issues for a fraternity’s use should be included in the CUP to establish clear communication of the expectations and the consequences for the fraternity if they don’t adhere to the listed conditions. For instance, the following condition is included in other fraternity CUPs, which was requested in the appeal, and makes sense: “Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for the revocation of this permit.” The City Staff implies that the fraternity already has to follow this condition of use because it must follow Federal, State, and local laws and the obligation is listed throughout Chapter 17 of the SLOMC, so it doesn't need to be included as a condition. If it’s not listed as a condition in the CUP, how does the fraternity know that it’s a condition of use? Also, any written complaints, especially by community members, are based on the conditions outlined in the CUP. It's confusing if the condition is not specifically listed as a condition in the CUP. This condition and others suggested in the appeal, should be included in the CUP so the conditions are clear to the fraternity and the community. Finally, you might think that Lambda Chi Alpha would be on their best behavior in anticipation of this appeal. Cal Poly has only been in session for a month, so it seems simple: Don’t have loud parties that violate the noise ordinance and don’t have more t han the maximum occupancy of 48 as outlined in the CUP before the City Council hearing on 10/15/2024. But in the past few weeks, the fraternity has had multiple calls to SLOPD for noise. (None were made by me or my family.) During the first week of classes a call was made to SLOPD and the dispatcher noted in the log that the fraternity was partying in the front yard at 1264 Foothill with a sign that said, “YOU HONK, WE DRINK”. 5 After that, there were at least two more loud parties at night and were issued noise citations at 1264 Foothill on 10/2/2024 and 10/9/2024. One citation lists 70 people at the party. During the Planning Commission hearing, the Chair asked the fraternity representative, Thomas Symer, if Lambda Chi Alpha had any satellite houses that held fraternity events in the neighborhood. Mr. Symer said they did not. However, that isn’t true. Lambda Chi Alpha has at least five illegal fraternity houses in the Alta Vista neighborhood that held documented fraternity events during the last academic year, including at 171 Orange, 12 Hathway, 253 Albert, and 278 Albert. Mr. Symer’s name was listed as the person cited at a fraternity event at one of those addresses. Lambda Chi Alpha has continued to hold illegal fraternity events at those addresses during rush recruitment this academic year, for the past two weekends. The fraternity is not even pretending to care about the neighborhood even though they know their use permit is subject to a City Council hearing on 10/15/2024. This emphasizes the need for clear conditions in the CUP that outline the conditions/rules for and the consequences of the fraternity use. Conditions are necessary and also beneficial for the community and the fraternity because they clarify the expectations and mitigate the impact of use. As mentioned, a fraternity's use is not “by-right” in an R-4 zone. The reason a CUP is required - to set forth conditions to resolve the negative impacts - is so the fraternity house(s) fits into the R-4 zone as a residential use. I am baffled at the City’s resistance to strengthening the CUP for this large, impactful fraternity use. This CUP will be a model for other fraternity CUPs. It is critical that it contains meaningful conditions that make the fraternity’s obligations clear and mitigate its impact on the neighborhood. I urge you to uphold the appeal to add conditions to the fraternity CUP for the good of the neighborhood and the fraternity, so everyone knows what is expected because it’s listed as a condition in the CUP. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 11:30 AM To:E-mail Council Website; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John Subject:List of CUPs for sororities and fraternities & present status Attachments:Greek CUPs in SLO.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. A while back, John Mezzapesa kindly provided me with the list of CUPs for sororities and fraternities on file at the City. (Thank you, John. You've been so helpful throughout this process! I appreciate all you've done.) Since there were some questions last night at the City Council meeting about "20 or so CUPs" I have attached a screenshot of the list provided by John and made annotations next to each CUP to show the present status of each. I have used bold font to indicate the fraternities. As you can see, of the 19 fraternities in the IFC at Cal Poly, only six have CUPs. Thank you to the Council and city staff for working toward solutions to this frustrating problem. We enjoy our college neighbors and have had enriching relationships with many of them. It's the fraternities that have been problematic. With gratitude, Kathie Delta Chi (Fraternity) 1236 Monte Vista Sigma Nu (Fraternity) 1292 Foothill Alpha Phi (Sorority) 1290 Foothill It seems the project was not completed in 2008 according to the terms of CUP therefore it is unclear whether this CUP is valid. Sigma Nu (Fraternity) 1304 Foothill Gamma Phi Beta (Sorority) 1326 Higuera Delta Gamma (Sorority) 1328 Foothill Phi Kappa Psi (Fraternity) 1335 Foothill Alpha Chi Omega (Sorority) 1464 Foothill Kappa Alpha Theta (Sorority) 180 California Alpha Gamma Delta (Sorority) 190 Stenner Kappa Kappa Gamma (Sorority) 244 California Alpha Epsilon Pi (Fraternity) 280 California Sigma Kappa (Sorority) 615 Grand Chi Omega (Sorority) 700 Grand Delta Upsilon (Fraternity) 720 Foothill Lambda Chi Alpha (Fraternity) 1264 Foothill New CUP issued 6/2024 Alpha Gamma Rho (Fraternity) 132 California – must re-apply Fraternity suspended, no longer in good standing until Fall 2025 Formerly Kappa Kappa Gamma (Sorority) Sorority relocated to 244 California Former sorority, the original house was demolished and The property was re-developed into luxury homes/condos Former Zeta Tau Alpha (Sorority), no longer affiliated with Cal Poly; Sold to private owner in 2007 Of 19 fraternities at Cal Poly (IFC) only 6 fraternities have CUPs. Sigma Nu has 2 CUPs 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 8:20 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: List of CUPs for sororities and fraternities & present status Thanks Kathie, This raises so many questions for me…so I will discuss with staff to improve my overall, general understanding of this topic. Michelle From: kathie walker < > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 11:30 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org> Subject: List of CUPs for sororities and fraternities & present status This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. A while back, John Mezzapesa kindly provided me with the list of CUPs for sororities and fraternities on file at the City. (Thank you, John. You've been so helpful throughout this process! I appreciate all you've done.) Since there were some questions last night at the City Council meeting about "20 or so CUPs" I have attached a screenshot of the list provided by John and made annotations next to each CUP to show the present status of each. I have used bold font to indicate the fraternities. As you can see, of the 19 fraternities in the IFC at Cal Poly, only six have CUPs. Thank you to the Council and city staff for working toward solutions to this frustrating problem. We enjoy our college neighbors and have had enriching relationships with many of them. It's the fraternities that have been problematic. With gratitude, Kathie 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Wednesday, October 23, 2024 12:03 PM To:E-mail Council Website; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John Cc:Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Sandra Rowley; Stewjenkins Info Subject:Noisy parties at fraternities / Halloweekend Attachments:SLOPD Noise calls to frats 10.17 to 10.20.2024.pdf; Halloweekend 2023 and calls to SLOPD at documented fraternity houses.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. City Council and Community Development, It only took three days after the City Council hearing on 10/15/2024 for the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity to give our neighborhood the middle finger. On 10/18/2024 the fraternity had a loud party with fireworks reported in the front yard of 1264 Foothill and a call to SLOPD was made at 10 p.m. (not by me or anyone in my family). Police responded at 11 p.m. Lambda Chi Alpha was issued a citation for a party with 50 people in attendance. This is their third noise citation this month but it may only be considered the first strike against their CUP but the call contained the trifecta of a noise violation, fireworks, and more occupants than allowed per the CUP. I want to acknowledge how challenging and complicated it is for Community Development to get on top of the fraternity situation, especially since Cal Poly is not sharing the locations where its fraternities are located which are holding events sanctioned by Cal Poly within our neighborhoods after being told my Community Development/Code Enforcement that this is against the City's laws. Also, Cal Poly does not share the locations of the main chapter houses for the 13 fraternities that don't have CUPs, even though it knows where they are located. Most main chapter fraternities are in rental homes in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and aren't eligible for CUPs. Despite these challenges for the City, Cal Poly continues to recruit more fraternity chapters to their campus without any provision for their fraternity houses. As Director Tway said at the Council meeting, there needs to be a program that oversees the fraternities (and sororities) and administers CUPs and compliance because there are 19 fraternities and dozens of satellite fraternity houses that hold events - mostly hosting large parties with sororities - in our residential neighborhoods where people are trying to rest. I've been studying this issue for two years and know where the main chapter houses are, and where most of the satellite houses that hold fraternity events are. I recently updated you with the addresses that held rush events earlier this month. I've also had several people reach out to me who have had fraternities move in near their homes that host sororities and cause a lot of noise. The problem is spreading into other neighborhoods. I've decided to create a report after each weekend for this academic year that lists the noise calls to SLOPD to each of the documented fraternity houses so the City can have some context about the resources utilized. I will also show a cumulative total of noise calls and outcomes for each documented fraternity address: Negative violation, Citation, Disturbance Advisement Card/DAC, or No Report. The report for last weekend, 10/17 - 10/20/2024, is attached. Theta Chi's party at 1350 Stafford & 496 Kentucky hosted sororities. I didn't call for the party and had fans running in my bedroom to drown out the noise of the sorority young women passing back and forth in front of our house. But our video surveillance shows many, 2 many, many females dressed similarly, walking toward Kentucky looking at their phones saying it's two minutes away (which is consistent with the Stafford/Kentucky location from our house), and then later walking back toward Hathway and saying the frat party "got rolled" by police. There were at least nine calls to SLOPD for noisy parties at documented fraternities during the weekend. The information is attached. Cal Poly could confirm these fraternity parties because fraternities are required to register their parties through Greek life ahead of time. The upcoming weekend is Halloweekend and I'm sure SLOPD will be very busy. Last year, nearly every fraternity listed parties in their AB 524 Reports during the Halloweekend event, and some fraternities listed multiple parties during the weekend. It was a nightmare! I encourage each of you to visit at 10 pm (quiet hours) on Friday or Saturday because there are no words to describe the chaos. The Alta Vista neighborhood is not that big. Many parties are held up in the upper areas, like Albert Drive. My husband and I have decided to leave town for two nights to avoid the anxiety we went through last year. I've attached a PDF with the fraternity AB 524 Reports for October so you can see that most fraternities registered parties for the weekend, which will likely happen again this year. Next week l will submit the report for the noise calls to documented fraternities during the weekend. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Fraternity Main Chapter Address Zone / Permitted Noise Calls Made to SLOPD (Neg Vio, Cit, No Rpt, DAC) Alpha Gamma Rho 132 California Blvd R-4 / Suspended until Fall 2025 Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd R-4 / Permitted Alpha Sigma Phi 1218/1220 Bond St (same APN) R-1 / Not allowed in R-1 zone Beta Theta Pi 1327 E. Foothill Blvd R-4 / No Permit Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista Pl R-4 / Permitted Delta Sigma Phi 1684/1688 Mill St (same APN) R-2 / Not allowed in R-2 zone X NV Delta Upsilon 720 E. Foothill Blvd R-4 / Permitted Kappa Sigma**** 281 Hathway Ave R-1 / Not allowed in R-1 zone Lambda Chi Alpha 1264 E. Foothill Blvd R-4 / Permitted X Citation Phi Delta Theta 260 Chaplin Lane R-1 / Not allowed in R-1 zone Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI)*** 1229 Fredericks St R-2 / Not allowed in R-2 zone Phi Kappa Psi 1335 E. Foothill Blvd R-4 / Permitted Phi Sigma Kappa 348/350 Hathway Ave (same APN) R-2 / Not allowed in R-2 zone Pi Kappa Phi 66 Rafael Way R-1 / Not allowed in R-1 zone Sigma Nu** 1304 E. Foothill Blvd R-4 / Permitted Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays St R-1 / Not allowed in R-1 zone Sigma Pi 1525 Slack St R-1 / Not allowed in R-1 zone Theta Chi 496 Kentucky/1350 Stafford (same APN) R-2 / Not allowed in R-1 zone XXX NV, Citation, NR Zeta Beta Tau 654/658 Graves Ave (same APN) R-4 / No Permit X NV **Sigma Nu satellite house 301 Hathway Ave R-2 / Not allowed in R-2 zone X NV *** FIJI satellite house 385 Chaplin Ln R-1 / Not allowed in R-1 zone X DAC ****Kappa Sigma satellite house 146 Stenner R-4/ No permit X Citation Noise calls to SLOPD at Cal Poly fraternity houses, Weekend of 10/17 – 10/20/2024 1 Fraternity: Lambda Chi Alpha, Main Chapter House: 1264 Foothill Noise call 10/18/2024 at 10:00 pm, SLOPD arrived 11:00 pm, Cleared: Citation, 50 people Noise calls during academic year 2024 – 2025: 4 Negative Violation: 1 (1) 09/21/2024 (Party and sign: If you honk, we drink) Citation: 3 (1) 10/02/2024 (2) 10/09/2024 - 70 people (3) 10/18/2024 - 50 people 2 Fraternity: Theta Chi, Main Chapter House: 496 Kentucky & 1350 Stafford (Both addresses are on same APN) Noise call 10/18/2024 at 9:06 pm, SLOPD arrived 9:37 pm, Cleared 9:38 pm: Negative Violation Noise call 10/18/2024 at 9:59 pm, SLOPD arrived 10:13 pm, Cleared 10:40 pm: Citation with 100+ people Noise call 10/18/2024 at 10:22 pm (1350 Stafford on same property as 496 Kentucky), Cleared 10:43 pm: No Report Noise calls during academic year 2024 – 2025: 3 Negative Violation: 1 10/18/2024 Citation: 1 10/18/2024 – 100+ people No Report: 1 10/18/2024 (1350 Stafford combined w/call to 496 Kentucky) Jordan Barraza’s LinkedIn lists membership in Theta Chi Cal Poly SLO 3 1350 Stafford496 Kentucky Social media post on Theta Chi’s Instagram during winter rush recruitment 2024 verifies illegal fraternity house locations in R-2 residential neighborhood Proof of fraternity at location Also see the 13 noise complaints to SLOPD for this property during last academic year, 2023 – 2024, on pages 10-11. 4 Fraternity: Zeta Beta Tau, Main Chapter House: 654 & 658 Graves Ave (Both addresses are on same APN) Noise call 10/18/2024 at 10:28 pm, SLOPD arrived 10:54 pm, Cleared: Negative Violation Noise calls during academic year 2024 – 2025: Negative Violation: 1 Citation: No Report: 5 Fraternity: Delta Sigma Phi, Main Chapter House: 1684/1688 Mill Street (Both addresses are on same APN) Noise call 10/19/2024 at 9:35 pm, SNAP arrived 9:38 pm, Cleared: Negative Violation Noise calls during academic year 2024 – 2025: Negative Violation: 1 Citation: No Report: Social media post on Delta Sigma Phi’s Instagram during fall rush recruitment, October 2024 verifies illegal fraternity house location at 1684 Mill St Proof of fraternity at location 6 Fraternity: Sigma Nu, Satellite Fraternity House: 301 Hathway Avenue Noise call 10/18/2024 at 12:14 am, SLOPD arrived 12:21 am, Cleared: Negative Violation Noise calls during academic year 2024 – 2025: 1 Negative Violation: 1 Proof of fraternity at location SigNu Events: Feb 2, 2024 May 10, 2024Cal Poly AB 524 Report (far right) 7 Fraternity: Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI), Satellite Fraternity House: 385 Chaplin Ln Noise call 10/18/2024 at 12:14 am, SLOPD arrived 12:21 am, Cleared: Negative Violation Noise calls during academic year 2024 – 2025: Negative Violation: Citation: DAC 1 Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report with its fraternity locationsProof of fraternity at location 8 Fraternity: Kappa Sigma, Satellite Fraternity House: 146 Stenner St Noise call 10/18/2024 at 8:47 pm, SLOPD arrived 9:10 pm, Cleared: Citation – over 150 people Noise calls during academic year 2024 – 2025: Citation: 1 Proof of fraternity at location 9 Matthew Hernandez’s LinkedIn lists him as Executive Board for Kappa Sigma Cal Poly SLO Fraternity car wash event Saturday, February 10, 2024 Noise calls to SLOPD, last academic year 2023 - 2024 at 496 Kentucky and 1350 Stafford (same APN) Theta Chi occupies both “satellite houses” on the corner of Kentucky and Stafford Noise calls to SLOPC, academic year 2023 – 2024: 13 noise complaints 496 Kentucky 10/28/2023 Negative Violation 10/28/2023 Citation – 200 people 02/15/2024 Call Canceled, associated with noise call at 1350 Stafford at same time 05/02/2024 Citation – 40 people 06/08/2024 Citation – 30 people 1350 Stafford 02/02/2024 Negative Violation 02/15/2024 Negative Violation 02/22/2024 Negative Violation 04/18/2024 Citation – 50 people 05/02/2024 Citation – 60 people 05/18/2024 Citation – 40 people 05/18/2024 Negative Violation “music and loud voices still continuing” Kentucky&Stafford 10/28/2023 Unable to Locate – (cited with 200 people less than 30 minutes later) Police log for each call on next page 10 Noise calls to SLOPD, last academic year 2023 - 2024 at 496 Kentucky and 1350 Stafford (same APN) Theta Chi occupies both “satellite houses” on the corner of Kentucky and Stafford 11 10/26/2023 280 California SLOPD called 10:18 pm, arrived 10:22 pm, cleared 10:34 pm 10/27/2024 299 Albert SLOPD called 7:45 pm, arrived 8:02 pm, cleared 8:03 pm 10/27/2023 1218 Bond SLOPD called 10:57 pm, arrived 11:20 pm, cleared 11:34 pm 10/28/2023 299 Albert SLOPD called 9:05 pm, arrived 9:11 pm, cleared 9:16 pm 10/28/2023 299 Albert SLOPD called 10:18 pm, arrived ?, cleared 10:39 pm 10/28/2023 1218 Bond SLOPD called 11:30 pm, arrived 11:43 pm, cleared 11:43 pm 10/28/2023 1220 Fredericks SLOPD called 8:43 pm, arrived 8:52 pm, cleared 8:58 pm 10/28/2023 1327 Foothill SLOPD called 9:36 pm, arrived 9:46 pm, cleared 9:53 pm 100 people 10/28/2023 281 Albert SLOPD called 9:08 pm, arrived 9:12 pm, cleared 9:22 pm 10/28/2023 1236 Monte Vista SLOPD called 9:34 pm, arrived 9:44 pm, cleared 10:07 pm 150 people Cal Poly Fraternity AB 524 Reports (2023-2024) with October 2023 events and Noise Complaints to SLOPD during Halloweekend 10/26 - 10/28/2023 10/26/2023 285 Chaplin SLOPD called 11:09 pm, arrived 11:34 pm, cleared 11:34 pm 10/28/2023 258 Albert SLOPD called 11:26, arrived 11:36 pm, cleared 11:38 pm 10/27/2023 1908 Loomis SLOPD called 8:16 pm, arrived 8:28 pm, cleared 8:35 pm 10/27/2023 1908 Loomis SLOPD called 10:18 pm, arrived 10:24 pm, cleared 10:53 pm 100 people 10/28/2023 348 Hathway SLOPD called 2:58 pm, arrived 3:30 pm, cleared 3:30 pm 10/27/2023 260 Chaplin SLOPD called 8:02 pm, arrived 8:05 pm, cleared 8:22 pm 10/28/2023 260 Chaplin SLOPD called 11:02 pm, arrived 11:05 pm 10/26/2023 146 Stenner SLOPD called 10:29 pm, arrived 10:45 pm, cleared 11:04 pm 10/27/2023 293 Albert SLOPD called 8:27pm, arrived 8:35 pm, cleared 9:10 pm 10/28/2023 293 Albert SLOPD called 9:07 pm, arrived 9:15 pm, cleared 9:29 pm 70 people 10/28/2023 293 Albert SLOPD called 10:21 pm, arrived 10:39 pm, cleared 10:38 pm 10/27/2023 1335 Foothill SLOPD called 9:54 pm, arrived 10:02 pm, cleared 10:07 pm No party listed on AB 524 Report during Halloween weekend 10/27/2023 1254 Bond SLOPD called 10:34 pm, arrived 11:15 pm, cleared 11:38 pm 10/26/2023 1820 Hope SLOPD called 9:56 pm, arrived 10:07 pm, cleared 10:22 pm 10/27/2023 410 Grand SLOPD called 11:14 pm, arrived 11:45 pm, cleared 11:54 pm 10/28/2023 496 Kentucky SLOPD called 8:26 pm, arrived 8:30 pm, cleared 8:37 pm 10/28/2023 496 Kentucky SLOPD called 9:44 pm, arrived 9:59 pm, cleared 10:20 pm 200 people 10/28/2023 1820 Hope SLOPD called 10:50 pm, arrived 11:03 pm, cleared 11:15 pm 10/28/2023 191 Kentucky SLOPD called 11:08 pm “registered party” 10/28/2023 191 Kentucky SLOPD called 11:46 pm, arrived 12:02 am, cleared 12:11 am 10/27/2023 290 Chaplin SLOPD called 8:31 pm, arrived 8:34 pm, cleared 8:55 pm 10/27/2023 281 Hathway SLOPD called 10:37 pm, arrived 11:06 pm 10/28/2023 1304 Foothill SLOPD called 9:35 pm, “registered party” 10/28/2023 2090 Hays SLOPD called 4:30 pm, arrived 4:33 pm, cleared 4:42 pm 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Wednesday, October 23, 2024 8:48 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Noisy parties at fraternities / Halloweekend Hi Kathie, I wanted to let you know that I acknowledge your frustration, and I hope you know that I am frustrated to. This has been a complicated (as you know and point out) issue. It is still taking me a long time to wrap my head around all the complexities associated with it. I have been having trouble getting my schedule to mesh with Director Tway’s schedule to talk about this in greater detail, but have proposed some dates and times and will keep working on it. In the meantime, I really would appreciate a regular report from you. I don’t think it needs to be as thorough, personally, as what you have provided, but a cumulative listing of each frat party, addresses and which zone they are in, and dates of those that result in some sort of action, so we can tell how many each end up with over a period of time, that would be helpful, I think. Thanks again, and I hope you have an enjoyable Halloween, wherever you choose to spend it. Michelle From: kathie walker < > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 12:03 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org> Cc: Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < ; Sandra Rowley < ; Stewjenkins Info < Subject: Noisy parties at fraternities / Halloweekend This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. City Council and Community Development, It only took three days after the City Council hearing on 10/15/2024 for the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity to give our neighborhood the middle finger. On 10/18/2024 the fraternity had a loud party with fireworks reported in the front yard of 1264 Foothill and a call to SLOPD was made at 10 p.m. (not by me or anyone in my family). Police responded at 11 p.m. Lambda Chi Alpha was issued a citation for a party with 50 people in attendance. This is their third noise citation this month but it may only be considered the first strike against their CUP but the call contained the trifecta of a noise violation, fireworks, and more occupants than allowed per the CUP. I want to acknowledge how challenging and complicated it is for Community Development to get on top of the fraternity situation, especially since Cal Poly is not sharing the locations where its fraternities are located which are holding events sanctioned by Cal Poly within our neighborhoods after being told my Community Development/Code Enforcement that this is against the City's laws. Also, Cal Poly does not share the locations of the main chapter houses for the 13 fraternities that don't have CUPs, even though it knows where they are located. Most main chapter fraternities are in rental homes in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and aren't eligible for CUPs. Despite these challenges for the City, Cal Poly continues to recruit more fraternity chapters to their campus without any provision for their fraternity houses. 2 As Director Tway said at the Council meeting, there needs to be a program that oversees the fraternities (and sororities) and administers CUPs and compliance because there are 19 fraternities and dozens of satellite fraternity houses that hold events - mostly hosting large parties with sororities - in our residential neighborhoods where people are trying to rest. I've been studying this issue for two years and know where the main chapter houses are, and where most of the satellite houses that hold fraternity events are. I recently updated you with the addresses that held rush events earlier this month. I've also had several people reach out to me who have had fraternities move in near their homes that host sororities and cause a lot of noise. The problem is spreading into other neighborhoods. I've decided to create a report after each weekend for this academic year that lists the noise calls to SLOPD to each of the documented fraternity houses so the City can have some context about the resources utilized. I will also show a cumulative total of noise calls and outcomes for each documented fraternity address: Negative violation, Citation, Disturbance Advisement Card/DAC, or No Report. The report for last weekend, 10/17 - 10/20/2024, is attached. Theta Chi's party at 1350 Stafford & 496 Kentucky hosted sororities. I didn't call for the party and had fans running in my bedroom to drown out the noise of the sorority young women passing back and forth in front of our house. But our video surveillance shows many, many, many females dressed similarly, walking toward Kentucky looking at their phones saying it's two minutes away (which is consistent with the Stafford/Kentucky location from our house), and then later walking back toward Hathway and saying the frat party "got rolled" by police. There were at least nine calls to SLOPD for noisy parties at documented fraternities during the weekend. The information is attached. Cal Poly could confirm these fraternity parties because fraternities are required to register their parties through Greek life ahead of time. The upcoming weekend is Halloweekend and I'm sure SLOPD will be very busy. Last year, nearly every fraternity listed parties in their AB 524 Reports during the Halloweekend event, and some fraternities listed multiple parties during the weekend. It was a nightmare! I encourage each of you to visit at 10 pm (quiet hours) on Friday or Saturday because there are no words to describe the chaos. The Alta Vista neighborhood is not that big. Many parties are held up in the upper areas, like Albert Drive. My husband and I have decided to leave town for two nights to avoid the anxiety we went through last year. I've attached a PDF with the fraternity AB 524 Reports for October so you can see that most fraternities registered parties for the weekend, which will likely happen again this year. Next week l will submit the report for the noise calls to documented fraternities during the weekend. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Tuesday, October 29, 2024 6:57 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 Attachments:SLOPD noise calls to fraternity houses 10.25 to 10.26.2024.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. There were seven noise complaints to documented fraternity houses the weekend of 10/25 - 10/26/2024, and an additional three calls were "in the area" of documented fraternity houses, with no specific address listed. A one- page report is attached. We left town on Thursday, got home after 9 pm on Saturday 10/26, and when we arrived, we saw/heard a huge fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks Street, which is the main chapter house for Phi Gamma Delta. SLOPD did not cite the noisy party. At least 100 guests left the party when the officer arrived. The neighborhood was active and there was a parade of noisy guests in front of our house, to and from the fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks, for over an hour. This is one of the side effects of a fraternity that is overlooked but impactful to those who live near them. Real estate investor, David Scarry, owns the property at 1229 Fredericks and was issued a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations at that location. Still, Phi Gamma Delta continues to operate its main chapter house at 1229 Fredericks, including rush events earlier this month and the Halloween party this weekend. I am confident the fraternity registered the party this weekend (and other events) with Cal Poly's Greek Life office, and the party was 'sanctioned' by Cal Poly in our lower-density residential neighborhood. There were nearly 50 calls to SLOPD for noise complaints over the weekend. The dispatch log shows some DACs were issued by SNAP, but no noise citations were issued by SLOPD. Thank you for your help in solving the problem of illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. -Kathie Date Received Address (main house in bold) Zone Fraternity Clearance Code Call Comments 10/25/2024 03:56 am 135 Crandall Way R-4 Sigma Nu Negative Violation Loud music at loc 10/25/2024 11:27 pm 1275 B Stafford Street* R-2 Phi Kappa Psi DAC 50 people Loud party 10/26/2024 02:21 am 348 Hathway Ave R-2 Phi Sigma Kappa Negative Violation Loud party 10/26/2024 09:08 pm 1218 Bond Street R-1 Alpha Sigma Phi DAC 30 people Loud music at loc 10/26/2024 09:19 pm 1229 Fredericks Street R-2 Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI) Negative Violation Loud party at loc 10/26/2024 10:30 pm 1254 Bond Street R-1 Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI) Negative Violation Loud music 10/26/2024 10:54 pm 1304 Foothill Blvd R-4 Sigma Nu Negative Violation Loud party at loc *Phi Kappa Psi has a compound of three homes at this location: 1271, 1273 & 1275 A/B Stafford Street with a common courtyard area. All three addresses are the same parcel. Each “address” is eligible for a DAC before a citation, and the fraternity uses this strategy to cycle through each address before a citation (with a monetary fine) is issued to the property. Illegal fraternities with multiple addresses on the same APN commonly use this strategy to avoid fines. Fraternities with CUPs are not eligible for a DAC. Noise calls in the vicinity of documented fraternity houses but address not specified: 10/25/2024 09:42 pm Foothill & Crandall R-4 Sigma Nu No Report (Notes from Officer Sisemore) 10/26/2024 09:11 pm Vets Hall** R-2 Negative Violation “Loud music and party heard in the area” 10/26/2024 10:07 pm Vets Hall** R-2 Negative Violation “Reporting Party recontacted, advised music is still loud” **Delta Sigma Phi’s main fraternity house is across the street from the Vets Hall at 1684 & 1688 Mill Street 1 From:CityClerk Sent:Wednesday, October 30, 2024 12:46 PM To:kathie walker Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John Subject:cc Walker - Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 Attachments:SLOPD noise calls to fraternity houses 10.25 to 10.26.2024.pdf BCC: Council All Kathie Walker, Thank you for taking the time to contact the City Council on this issue. The City Council has received your concerns and Timmi Tway, Community Development Director who is responsible for responding is copied on this email. Timmi or a member of her staff will be following up with you within two business days. City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 6:57 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. There were seven noise complaints to documented fraternity houses the weekend of 10/25 - 10/26/2024, and an additional three calls were "in the area" of documented fraternity houses, with no specific address listed. A one- page report is attached. We left town on Thursday, got home after 9 pm on Saturday 10/26, and when we arrived, we saw/heard a huge fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks Street, which is the main chapter house for Phi Gamma Delta. SLOPD did not cite the noisy party. At least 100 guests left the party when the officer arrived. The neighborhood was active and there was a parade of noisy guests in front of our house, to and from the fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks, for over an hour. This is one of the side effects of a fraternity that is overlooked but impactful to those who live near them. Real estate investor, David Scarry, owns the property at 1229 Fredericks and was issued a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations at that location. Still, Phi Gamma Delta continues to operate its main chapter house at 1229 Fredericks, including rush events earlier this month and the Halloween party this weekend. I am confident the fraternity registered the party this weekend (and other events) with Cal Poly's Greek Life office, and the party was 'sanctioned' by Cal Poly in our lower-density residential neighborhood. 2 There were nearly 50 calls to SLOPD for noise complaints over the weekend. The dispatch log shows some DACs were issued by SNAP, but no noise citations were issued by SLOPD. Thank you for your help in solving the problem of illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. -Kathie Date Received Address (main house in bold) Zone Fraternity Clearance Code Call Comments 10/25/2024 03:56 am 135 Crandall Way R-4 Sigma Nu Negative Violation Loud music at loc 10/25/2024 11:27 pm 1275 B Stafford Street* R-2 Phi Kappa Psi DAC 50 people Loud party 10/26/2024 02:21 am 348 Hathway Ave R-2 Phi Sigma Kappa Negative Violation Loud party 10/26/2024 09:08 pm 1218 Bond Street R-1 Alpha Sigma Phi DAC 30 people Loud music at loc 10/26/2024 09:19 pm 1229 Fredericks Street R-2 Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI) Negative Violation Loud party at loc 10/26/2024 10:30 pm 1254 Bond Street R-1 Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI) Negative Violation Loud music 10/26/2024 10:54 pm 1304 Foothill Blvd R-4 Sigma Nu Negative Violation Loud party at loc *Phi Kappa Psi has a compound of three homes at this location: 1271, 1273 & 1275 A/B Stafford Street with a common courtyard area. All three addresses are the same parcel. Each “address” is eligible for a DAC before a citation, and the fraternity uses this strategy to cycle through each address before a citation (with a monetary fine) is issued to the property. Illegal fraternities with multiple addresses on the same APN commonly use this strategy to avoid fines. Fraternities with CUPs are not eligible for a DAC. Noise calls in the vicinity of documented fraternity houses but address not specified: 10/25/2024 09:42 pm Foothill & Crandall R-4 Sigma Nu No Report (Notes from Officer Sisemore) 10/26/2024 09:11 pm Vets Hall** R-2 Negative Violation “Loud music and party heard in the area” 10/26/2024 10:07 pm Vets Hall** R-2 Negative Violation “Reporting Party recontacted, advised music is still loud” **Delta Sigma Phi’s main fraternity house is across the street from the Vets Hall at 1684 & 1688 Mill Street 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Wednesday, October 30, 2024 7:04 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 Thank you Kathie. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 6:57 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. There were seven noise complaints to documented fraternity houses the weekend of 10/25 - 10/26/2024, and an additional three calls were "in the area" of documented fraternity houses, with no specific address listed. A one- page report is attached. We left town on Thursday, got home after 9 pm on Saturday 10/26, and when we arrived, we saw/heard a huge fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks Street, which is the main chapter house for Phi Gamma Delta. SLOPD did not cite the noisy party. At least 100 guests left the party when the officer arrived. The neighborhood was active and there was a parade of noisy guests in front of our house, to and from the fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks, for over an hour. This is one of the side effects of a fraternity that is overlooked but impactful to those who live near them. Real estate investor, David Scarry, owns the property at 1229 Fredericks and was issued a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations at that location. Still, Phi Gamma Delta continues to operate its main chapter house at 1229 Fredericks, including rush events earlier this month and the Halloween party this weekend. I am confident the fraternity registered the party this weekend (and other events) with Cal Poly's Greek Life office, and the party was 'sanctioned' by Cal Poly in our lower-density residential neighborhood. There were nearly 50 calls to SLOPD for noise complaints over the weekend. The dispatch log shows some DACs were issued by SNAP, but no noise citations were issued by SLOPD. Thank you for your help in solving the problem of illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. -Kathie 1 Wooten, Eric From:kathie walker < > Sent:Friday, November 1, 2024 1:08 PM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:Re: cc Walker - Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 Flag Status:Completed Hi Timmi, Does SLOPD and Code Enforcement communicate about illegal fraternity parties? The one last weekend at 1229 Fredericks is one example that could have been verified by SLOPD, even though it was not cited for noise, because it was an obvious fraternity party. There was another HUGE fraternity party last night at 299 Albert, which is an illegal satellite house for Alpha Sigma Phi. Their main chapter house is also in our neighborhood at 1218 Bond. Is there a database of illegal fraternities that are cross-referenced with SLOPD responses? Last night, hundreds of people were blocking Albert Drive when the party at 299 Albert (Alpha Sig) was broken up. The house is owned by Sanjay Ganpule and he also owns a fraternity house down the street at 1700 Fredericks (Delta Upsilon) and the house next door to us. He lives on an estate on five acres and is not affected by the chaos his fraternity tenants create in our neighborhood. Same with David Scarry, who also owns fraternity houses in our neighborhood, including 1229 Fredericks. They don't care abo ut the negative impact on those who live near their illegal fraternities while collecting huge profits from their rentals. It's pretty frustrating. Is CDD communicating with SLOPD about the illegal or unpermitted fraternity addresses? Thank you for your help. -Kathie On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 12:53 PM Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: Thank you, Kathie, This information has been provided to the Code Enforcement Team and they will open code enforcement cases as appropriate. Thank you, Timmi 2 From: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 12:46 PM To: kathie walker < > Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org> Subject: cc Walker - Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 BCC: Council All Kathie Walker, Thank you for taking the time to contact the City Council on this issue. The City Council has received your concerns and Timmi Tway, Community Development Director who is responsible for responding is copied on this email. Timmi or a member of her staff will be following up with you within two business days. City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 6:57 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. There were seven noise complaints to documented fraternity houses the weekend of 10/25 - 10/26/2024, and an additional three calls were "in the area" of documented fraternity houses, with no specific address listed. A one-page report is attached. We left town on Thursday, got home after 9 pm on Saturday 10/26, and when we arrived, we saw/heard a huge fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks Street, which is the main chapter house for Phi Gamma Delta. SLOPD did not cite the noisy party. At least 100 guests left the party when the officer arrived. The neighborhood was active 3 and there was a parade of noisy guests in front of our house, to and from the fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks, for over an hour. This is one of the side effects of a fraternity that is overlooked but impactful to those who live near them. Real estate investor, David Scarry, owns the property at 1229 Fredericks and was issued a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations at that location. Still, Phi Gamma Delta continues to operate its main chapter house at 1229 Fredericks, including rush events earlier this month and the Halloween party this weekend. I am confident the fraternity registered the party this weekend (and other events) with Cal Poly's Greek Life office, and the party was 'sanctioned' by Cal Poly in our lower-density residential neighborhood. There were nearly 50 calls to SLOPD for noise complaints over the weekend. The dispatch log shows some DACs were issued by SNAP, but no noise citations were issued by SLOPD. Thank you for your help in solving the problem of illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. -Kathie 1 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Friday, November 1, 2024 12:54 PM To:kathie walker Cc:Mezzapesa, John; CityClerk Subject:RE: cc Walker - Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 Thank you, Kathie, This information has been provided to the Code Enforcement Team and they will open code enforcement cases as appropriate. Thank you, Timmi From: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 12:46 PM To: kathie walker < > Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org> Subject: cc Walker - Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 BCC: Council All Kathie Walker, Thank you for taking the time to contact the City Council on this issue. The City Council has received your concerns and Timmi Tway, Community Development Director who is responsible for responding is copied on this email. Timmi or a member of her staff will be following up with you within two business days. City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 6:57 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. There were seven noise complaints to documented fraternity houses the weekend of 10/25 - 10/26/2024, and an additional three calls were "in the area" of documented fraternity houses, with no specific address listed. A one- page report is attached. 2 We left town on Thursday, got home after 9 pm on Saturday 10/26, and when we arrived, we saw/heard a huge fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks Street, which is the main chapter house for Phi Gamma Delta. SLOPD did not cite the noisy party. At least 100 guests left the party when the officer arrived. The neighborhood was active and there was a parade of noisy guests in front of our house, to and from the fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks, for over an hour. This is one of the side effects of a fraternity that is overlooked but impactful to those who live near them. Real estate investor, David Scarry, owns the property at 1229 Fredericks and was issued a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations at that location. Still, Phi Gamma Delta continues to operate its main chapter house at 1229 Fredericks, including rush events earlier this month and the Halloween party this weekend. I am confident the fraternity registered the party this weekend (and other events) with Cal Poly's Greek Life office, and the party was 'sanctioned' by Cal Poly in our lower-density residential neighborhood. There were nearly 50 calls to SLOPD for noise complaints over the weekend. The dispatch log shows some DACs were issued by SNAP, but no noise citations were issued by SLOPD. Thank you for your help in solving the problem of illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. -Kathie 1 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Saturday, November 2, 2024 4:36 PM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: cc Walker - Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 Hi Kathie, PD and Code Enforcement work closely together on these issues continually, but I can't speak to what information PD reference in the field, etc. I will say that we have internal meetings set up (one next week) to discuss strategy and coordination on this issue amongst departments given the impact and complexity of the issue. Thanks, Timmi From: kathie walker < > Sent: Friday, November 1, 2024 1:07:56 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Re: cc Walker - Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 Hi Timmi, Does SLOPD and Code Enforcement communicate about illegal fraternity parties? The one last weekend at 1229 Fredericks is one example that could have been verified by SLOPD, even though it was not cited for noise, because it was an obvious fraternity party. There was another HUGE fraternity party last night at 299 Albert, which is an illegal satellite house for Alpha Sigma Phi. Their main chapter house is also in our neighborhood at 1218 Bond. Is there a database of illegal fraternities that are cross-referenced with SLOPD responses? Last night, hundreds of people were blocking Albert Drive when the party at 299 Albert (Alpha Sig) was broken up. The house is owned by Sanjay Ganpule and he also owns a fraternity house down the street at 1700 Fredericks (Delta Upsilon) and the house next door to us. He lives on an estate on five acres and is not affected by the chaos his fraternity tenants create in our neighborhood. Same with David Scarry, who also owns fraternity houses in our neighborhood, including 1229 Fredericks. They don't care abo ut the negative impact on those who live near their illegal fraternities while collecting huge profits from their rentals. It's pretty frustrating. Is CDD communicating with SLOPD about the illegal or unpermitted fraternity addresses? Thank you for your help. -Kathie 2 On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 12:53 PM Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: Thank you, Kathie, This information has been provided to the Code Enforcement Team and they will open code enforcement cases as appropriate. Thank you, Timmi From: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 12:46 PM To: kathie walker < > Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org> Subject: cc Walker - Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 BCC: Council All Kathie Walker, Thank you for taking the time to contact the City Council on this issue. The City Council has received your concerns and Timmi Tway, Community Development Director who is responsible for responding is copied on this email. Timmi or a member of her staff will be following up with you within two business days. City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 From: kathie walker < > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 6:57 PM 3 To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Noise Report 10/25 -10/26/2024 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. There were seven noise complaints to documented fraternity houses the weekend of 10/25 - 10/26/2024, and an additional three calls were "in the area" of documented fraternity houses, with no specific address listed. A one-page report is attached. We left town on Thursday, got home after 9 pm on Saturday 10/26, and when we arrived, we saw/heard a huge fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks Street, which is the main chapter house for Phi Gamma Delta. SLOPD did not cite the noisy party. At least 100 guests left the party when the officer arrived. The neighborhood was active and there was a parade of noisy guests in front of our house, to and from the fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks, for over an hour. This is one of the side effects of a fraternity that is overlooked but impactful to those who live near them. Real estate investor, David Scarry, owns the property at 1229 Fredericks and was issued a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations at that location. Still, Phi Gamma Delta continues to operate its main chapter house at 1229 Fredericks, including rush events earlier this month and the Halloween party this weekend. I am confident the fraternity registered the party this weekend (and other events) with Cal Poly's Greek Life office, and the party was 'sanctioned' by Cal Poly in our lower-density residential neighborhood. There were nearly 50 calls to SLOPD for noise complaints over the weekend. The dispatch log shows some DACs were issued by SNAP, but no noise citations were issued by SLOPD. Thank you for your help in solving the problem of illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. -Kathie 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Monday, November 4, 2024 12:48 PM To:E-mail Council Website; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); McDonald, Whitney; Scott, Rick; Mickel, Fred Cc:Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross Subject:Fraternity parties and noise This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. It was a noisy weekend and I will send a report after the election. But I wanted to sum up the problem in this email. Problem 1 SLO Code Enforcement has met with Cal Poly Greek life administration and advised that fraternity operations are illegal in lower- density neighborhoods, including those near the campus. Despite knowing that fraternity-related events are not permitted in lower-density neighborhoods, Cal Poly administration continues to “approve” and “sanction” fraternity parties at documented fraternity houses in our neighborhood. This has changed the fabric of the City’s neighborhoods and made them unlivable to the average, reasonable person who wants and needs to have the quiet enjoyment of their property. Problem 2 SLO Code Enforcement has contacted property owners of many illegal fraternity houses in the City’s neighborhoods and told them that fraternity operations are against the law, and their property has held documented fraternity events. Despite receiving a notice of violation or advisory letter, the properties continue to host fraternity-related illegal events, including large fraternity parties. These investors are profiting from the rental income from a fraternity and have no stake in the ruination of the quality of life of those who live near their investment properties/fraternity houses, because they -the investors- live in quiet neighborhoods or on large estates. Some of the investors who own multiple properties with illegal fraternity houses and are not personally affected by noise: David Scarry, Sanjay Ganpule, Jerry Lenthall. Problem 3 Code Enforcement and SLOPD do not seem to be sharing information about documented illegal fraternity addresses. This has allowed fraternities to hold disruptive parties without accountability. I've included some party addresses at known fraternity houses from this weekend, below: 1. A legal fraternity is not allowed to register a party.  Documented illegal fraternity houses are registering parties with SLOPD to escape a response from SLOPD if someone calls dispatch about a noisy party. (e.g. Delta Sigma Phi at 1684/1688 Mill Street) 2. A legal fraternity requires a response from SLOPD, not SNAP.  SNAP officers are responding to documented illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. (e.g. Sigma Phi Epsilon at 2090 Hays, Theta Chi at 2149 Santa Ynez, Theta Chi at 250 Grand, Phi Kappa Psi at 1276 Bond, Delta Sigma Phi at 1688 Mill, etc.) 3. A legal fraternity is not eligible for a Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC) but is issued a citation when a noise violation is found. 2  SNAP officers cannot issue citations. They are responding to documented fraternity locations and clearing parties with negative violations or, in some cases, issuing DACs when there are 100 or more people at a party. (e.g. Theta Chi at 1820 Hope Street had 150 people) 4. A legal fraternity is not allowed to clear its citation history through SLOPD’s Early Removal Program.  Property owners of documented illegal fraternity houses with multiple citations, costing the landlord and tenants thousands of dollars, have been allowed to clear their citation history to avoid the financial accountability of expensive noise citations through SLOPD’s “Early Removal Program” (e.g. Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 Hathway Avenue) I'm unsure if 1820 Hope also cleared their history but it was historically the main chapter house for Theta Chi, has a history of noisy parties and citations, but received a DAC this weekend with 150 people at the party. Solution Stop the illegal fraternity events in the city’s neighborhoods by holding Cal Poly and the investor property owners responsible. Obtain the addresses of all fraternity events in our neighborhoods during the last academic year and this academic year from Cal Poly and flag the properties in SLOPD’s system so they are accountable for their disruptive activities. I have already provided the address locations, including social media posts for fraternity rush events this academic year. Declare the properties a public nuisance if necessary, for continued fraternity operations that are making it impossible for residents to rest or sleep. Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible for a DAC and should receive a citation for a noise violation which means SLOPD responds. Illegal fraternity properties not be eligible for Early Removal through SLOPD to wipe their citation history clean. Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible to register their parties through SLOPD. Also, Alpha Sigma Phi had an enormous party at 299 Albert on 10/31 that completely blocked the streets. The PD log shows the party as a traffic hazard and the party was not cited. I suggest it would be helpful for the city manager and council to view SLOPD video footage from their vehicles and body cams to better understand the disruption caused by fraternities in our neighborhood. Same goes for the Delta Upsilon party at 281 Albert on 11/1. Please watch video of the parties from SLOPD footage from vehicles and body cams. Thank you, Kathie 1 From:Scott, Rick Sent:Tuesday, November 5, 2024 3:41 PM To:kathie walker Cc:Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; McDonald, Whitney; Mickel, Fred; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); CityClerk Subject:RE: Fraternity parties and noise BCC CC: Hi Kathie, Thank you for your email, our team will review your observations for any issues to address. The police department was properly upstaffed this past weekend and the weekend prior to address complaints as they came in, as well as proactive patrols throughout the north end neighborhoods in conjunction with the City’s Safety Enhancement Zone. There are a few exciting updates to pass along based on the following questions/comments from your email: Q: Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible for a DAC and should receive a citation for a noise violation which means SLOPD responds. A: Agreed. We are currently evaluating a validated and defensible method of identifying “nuisance” locations. Most likely we will utilize Code’s infraction list, provided they encompass the properties which are in fact “satellite” properties and a “nuisance” as they determine. Q: Illegal fraternity properties not be eligible for Early Removal through SLOPD to wipe their citation history clean. A: Agreed. All “regular” houses (without a CUP) are offered the ability to do early removal. However, this will most likely change in the Spring as we change our focus on “nuisance” properties according to Code, thus keeping them on the list indefinitely or until they are off “nuisance” or “satellite” properties list. Again, as maintained by Code Enforcement since PD doesn’t determine an “illegal” fraternity. Q: Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible to register their parties through SLOPD. A: Agreed. We put that into place last spring, based on “known/nuisance” properties. However, unknown or not defined “satellite” properties where fraternity people may live can register if they meet the party reg requirements. Again, our goal is to bring this in alignment with Code’s infraction list on this one as well, provided it can be verified by the City. Thank you, Rick Scott Police Chief Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E rscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7256 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 2 This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 12:48 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < Subject: Fraternity parties and noise This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. It was a noisy weekend and I will send a report after the election. But I wanted to sum up the problem in this email. Problem 1 SLO Code Enforcement has met with Cal Poly Greek life administration and advised that fraternity operations are illegal in lower- density neighborhoods, including those near the campus. Despite knowing that fraternity-related events are not permitted in lower-density neighborhoods, Cal Poly administration continues to “approve” and “sanction” fraternity parties at documented fraternity houses in our neighborhood. This has changed the fabric of the City’s neighborhoods and made them unlivable to the average, reasonable person who wants and needs to have the quiet enjoyment of their property. Problem 2 SLO Code Enforcement has contacted property owners of many illegal fraternity houses in the City’s neighborhoods and told them that fraternity operations are against the law, and their property has held documented fraternity events. Despite receiving a notice of violation or advisory letter, the properties continue to host fraternity-related illegal events, including large fraternity parties. These investors are profiting from the rental income from a fraternity and have no stake in the ruination of the quality of life of those who live near their investment properties/fraternity houses, because they -the investors- live in quiet neighborhoods or on large estates. Some of the investors who own multiple properties with illegal fraternity houses and are not personally affected by noise: David Scarry, Sanjay Ganpule, Jerry Lenthall. Problem 3 Code Enforcement and SLOPD do not seem to be sharing information about documented illegal fraternity addresses. This has allowed fraternities to hold disruptive parties without accountability. I've included some party addresses at known fraternity houses from this weekend, below: 1. A legal fraternity is not allowed to register a party.  Documented illegal fraternity houses are registering parties with SLOPD to escape a response from SLOPD if someone calls dispatch about a noisy party. (e.g. Delta Sigma Phi at 1684/1688 Mill Street) 2. A legal fraternity requires a response from SLOPD, not SNAP.  SNAP officers are responding to documented illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. (e.g. Sigma Phi Epsilon at 2090 Hays, Theta Chi at 2149 Santa Ynez, Theta Chi at 250 Grand, Phi Kappa Psi at 1276 Bond, Delta Sigma Phi at 1688 Mill, etc.) 3 3. A legal fraternity is not eligible for a Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC) but is issued a citation when a noise violation is found.  SNAP officers cannot issue citations. They are responding to documented fraternity locations and clearing parties with negative violations or, in some cases, issuing DACs when there are 100 or more people at a party. (e.g. Theta Chi at 1820 Hope Street had 150 people) 4. A legal fraternity is not allowed to clear its citation history through SLOPD’s Early Removal Program.  Property owners of documented illegal fraternity houses with multiple citations, costing the landlord and tenants thousands of dollars, have been allowed to clear their citation history to avoid the financial accountability of expensive noise citations through SLOPD’s “Early Removal Program” (e.g. Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 Hathway Avenue) I'm unsure if 1820 Hope also cleared their history but it was historically the main chapter house for Theta Chi, has a history of noisy parties and citations, but received a DAC this weekend with 150 people at the party. Solution Stop the illegal fraternity events in the city’s neighborhoods by holding Cal Poly and the investor property owners responsible. Obtain the addresses of all fraternity events in our neighborhoods during the last academic year and this academic year from Cal Poly and flag the properties in SLOPD’s system so they are accountable for their disruptive activities. I have already provided the address locations, including social media posts for fraternity rush events this academic year. Declare the properties a public nuisance if necessary, for continued fraternity operations that are making it impossible for residents to rest or sleep. Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible for a DAC and should receive a citation for a noise violation which means SLOPD responds. Illegal fraternity properties not be eligible for Early Removal through SLOPD to wipe their citation history clean. Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible to register their parties through SLOPD. Also, Alpha Sigma Phi had an enormous party at 299 Albert on 10/31 that completely blocked the streets. The PD log shows the party as a traffic hazard and the party was not cited. I suggest it would be helpful for the city manager and council to view SLOPD video footage from their vehicles and body cams to better understand the disruption caused by fraternities in our neighborhood. Same goes for the Delta Upsilon party at 281 Albert on 11/1. Please watch video of the parties from SLOPD footage from vehicles and body cams. Thank you, Kathie 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Wednesday, November 6, 2024 10:13 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Fraternity parties and noise HI Kathie, I think we are aware of the issues. What IS helpful is your documenting of the parties that are happening, and the addresses at which they are happening, and the documenting of their frequency. I met with our Community Development Director and City Manager yesterday about this specific issue. I know you know this, but we are working, from a number of angles, on enforcement as we are currently able, including improving communication between code enforcement and PD, reviewing language and looking at existing CUPs and enforcement, and many other potential measures. As you note, we will also continue to work on gaining assistance and coordination from Cal Poly in our efforts. Unfortunately, none of the this is quick. We do appreciate you flagging issues as you can, and sharing information with us. I will take note of the specific instances of parties noted below and ask questions about the citations or lack thereof. Thank you. Michelle From: kathie walker < > Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 12:48 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < Subject: Fraternity parties and noise This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. It was a noisy weekend and I will send a report after the election. But I wanted to sum up the problem in this email. Problem 1 SLO Code Enforcement has met with Cal Poly Greek life administration and advised that fraternity operations are illegal in lower- density neighborhoods, including those near the campus. Despite knowing that fraternity-related events are not permitted in lower-density neighborhoods, Cal Poly administration continues to “approve” and “sanction” fraternity parties at documented fraternity houses in our neighborhood. This has changed the fabric of the City’s neighborhoods and made them unlivable to the average, reasonable person who wants and needs to have the quiet enjoyment of their property. Problem 2 SLO Code Enforcement has contacted property owners of many illegal fraternity houses in the City’s neighborhoods and told them that fraternity operations are against the law, and their property has held documented fraternity events. Despite receiving a notice of violation or advisory letter, the properties continue to host fraternity-related illegal events, including large fraternity parties. These investors are profiting from the rental income from a fraternity and have no stake in the 2 ruination of the quality of life of those who live near their investment properties/fraternity houses, because they -the investors- live in quiet neighborhoods or on large estates. Some of the investors who own multiple properties with illegal fraternity houses and are not personally affected by noise: David Scarry, Sanjay Ganpule, Jerry Lenthall. Problem 3 Code Enforcement and SLOPD do not seem to be sharing information about documented illegal fraternity addresses. This has allowed fraternities to hold disruptive parties without accountability. I've included some party addresses at known fraternity houses from this weekend, below: 1. A legal fraternity is not allowed to register a party.  Documented illegal fraternity houses are registering parties with SLOPD to escape a response from SLOPD if someone calls dispatch about a noisy party. (e.g. Delta Sigma Phi at 1684/1688 Mill Street) 2. A legal fraternity requires a response from SLOPD, not SNAP.  SNAP officers are responding to documented illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. (e.g. Sigma Phi Epsilon at 2090 Hays, Theta Chi at 2149 Santa Ynez, Theta Chi at 250 Grand, Phi Kappa Psi at 1276 Bond, Delta Sigma Phi at 1688 Mill, etc.) 3. A legal fraternity is not eligible for a Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC) but is issued a citation when a noise violation is found.  SNAP officers cannot issue citations. They are responding to documented fraternity locations and clearing parties with negative violations or, in some cases, issuing DACs when there are 100 or more people at a party. (e.g. Theta Chi at 1820 Hope Street had 150 people) 4. A legal fraternity is not allowed to clear its citation history through SLOPD’s Early Removal Program.  Property owners of documented illegal fraternity houses with multiple citations, costing the landlord and tenants thousands of dollars, have been allowed to clear their citation history to avoid the financial accountability of expensive noise citations through SLOPD’s “Early Removal Program” (e.g. Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 Hathway Avenue) I'm unsure if 1820 Hope also cleared their history but it was historically the main chapter house for Theta Chi, has a history of noisy parties and citations, but received a DAC this weekend with 150 people at the party. Solution Stop the illegal fraternity events in the city’s neighborhoods by holding Cal Poly and the investor property owners responsible. Obtain the addresses of all fraternity events in our neighborhoods during the last academic year and this academic year from Cal Poly and flag the properties in SLOPD’s system so they are accountable for their disruptive activities. I have already provided the address locations, including social media posts for fraternity rush events this academic year. Declare the properties a public nuisance if necessary, for continued fraternity operations that are making it impossible for residents to rest or sleep. Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible for a DAC and should receive a citation for a noise violation which means SLOPD responds. Illegal fraternity properties not be eligible for Early Removal through SLOPD to wipe their citation history clean. Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible to register their parties through SLOPD. Also, Alpha Sigma Phi had an enormous party at 299 Albert on 10/31 that completely blocked the streets. The PD log shows the party as a traffic hazard and the party was not cited. I suggest it would be helpful for the city manager and council to view SLOPD video footage from their vehicles and body cams to better understand the 3 disruption caused by fraternities in our neighborhood. Same goes for the Delta Upsilon party at 281 Albert on 11/1. Please watch video of the parties from SLOPD footage from vehicles and body cams. Thank you, Kathie 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Wednesday, November 6, 2024 10:34 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Fraternity parties and noise Hi Michelle, I'm so glad you were able to meet with Timmi. I will send a report with the noise calls from last weekend at documented fraternity houses. (I took a mental health day today and disconnected after the presidential election results, but plan to get busy again tomorrow.) I also appreciate your clarification about the information that you find most helpful. Thank you, -Kathie On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 10:12 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: HI Kathie, I think we are aware of the issues. What IS helpful is your documenting of the parties that are happening, and the addresses at which they are happening, and the documenting of their frequency. I met with our Community Development Director and City Manager yesterday about this specific issue. I know you know this, but we are working, from a number of angles, on enforcement as we are currently able, including improving communication between code enforcement and PD, reviewing language and looking at existing CUPs and enforcement, and many other potential measures. As you note, we will also continue to work on gaining assistance and coordination from Cal Poly in our efforts. Unfortunately, none of the this is quick. We do appreciate you flagging issues as you can, and sharing information with us. I will take note of the specific instances of parties noted below and ask questions about the citations or lack thereof. Thank you. Michelle 2 From: kathie walker < > Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 12:48 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < Subject: Fraternity parties and noise This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. It was a noisy weekend and I will send a report after the election. But I wanted to sum up the problem in this email. Problem 1 SLO Code Enforcement has met with Cal Poly Greek life administration and advised that fraternity operations are illegal in lower-density neighborhoods, including those near the campus. Despite knowing that fraternity-related events are not permitted in lower-density neighborhoods, Cal Poly administration continues to “approve” and “sanction” fraternity parties at documented fraternity houses in our neighborhood. This has changed the fabric of the City’s neighborhoods and made them unlivable to the average, reasonable person who wants and needs to have the quiet enjoyment of their property. Problem 2 SLO Code Enforcement has contacted property owners of many illegal fraternity houses in the City’s neighborhoods and told them that fraternity operations are against the law, and their property has held documented fraternity events. Despite receiving a notice of violation or advisory letter, the properties continue to host fraternity-related illegal events, including large fraternity parties. These investors are profiting from the rental income from a fraternity and have no stake in the ruination of the quality of life of those who live near their investment properties/fraternity houses, because they -the investors- live in quiet neighborhoods or on large estates. Some of the investors who own multiple properties with illegal fraternity houses and are not personally affected by noise: David Scarry, Sanjay Ganpule, Jerry Lenthall. Problem 3 Code Enforcement and SLOPD do not seem to be sharing information about documented illegal fraternity addresses. This has allowed fraternities to hold disruptive parties without accountability. I've included some party addresses at known fraternity houses from this weekend, below: 1. A legal fraternity is not allowed to register a party.  Documented illegal fraternity houses are registering parties with SLOPD to escape a response from SLOPD if someone calls dispatch about a noisy party. (e.g. Delta Sigma Phi at 1684/1688 Mill Street) 2. A legal fraternity requires a response from SLOPD, not SNAP. 3  SNAP officers are responding to documented illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. (e.g. Sigma Phi Epsilon at 2090 Hays, Theta Chi at 2149 Santa Ynez, Theta Chi at 250 Grand, Phi Kappa Psi at 1276 Bond, Delta Sigma Phi at 1688 Mill, etc.) 3. A legal fraternity is not eligible for a Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC) but is issued a citation when a noise violation is found.  SNAP officers cannot issue citations. They are responding to documented fraternity locations and clearing parties with negative violations or, in some cases, issuing DACs when there are 100 or more people at a party. (e.g. Theta Chi at 1820 Hope Street had 150 people) 4. A legal fraternity is not allowed to clear its citation history through SLOPD’s Early Removal Program.  Property owners of documented illegal fraternity houses with multiple citations, costing the landlord and tenants thousands of dollars, have been allowed to clear their citation history to avoid the financial accountability of expensive noise citations through SLOPD’s “Early Removal Program” (e.g. Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 Hathway Avenue) I'm unsure if 1820 Hope also cleared their history but it was historically the main chapter house for Theta Chi, has a history of noisy parties and citations, but received a DAC this weekend with 150 people at the party. Solution Stop the illegal fraternity events in the city’s neighborhoods by holding Cal Poly and the investor property owners responsible. Obtain the addresses of all fraternity events in our neighborhoods during the last academic year and this academic year from Cal Poly and flag the properties in SLOPD’s system so they are accountable for their disruptive activities. I have already provided the address locations, including social media posts for fraternity rush events this academic year. Declare the properties a public nuisance if necessary, for continued fraternity operations that are making it impossible for residents to rest or sleep. Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible for a DAC and should receive a citation for a noise violation which means SLOPD responds. Illegal fraternity properties not be eligible for Early Removal through SLOPD to wipe their citation history clean. Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible to register their parties through SLOPD. Also, Alpha Sigma Phi had an enormous party at 299 Albert on 10/31 that completely blocked the streets. The PD log shows the party as a traffic hazard and the party was not cited. I suggest it would be helpful for the city manager and council to view SLOPD video footage from their vehicles and body cams to better understand the disruption caused by fraternities in our neighborhood. Same goes for the Delta Upsilon party at 281 Albert on 11/1. Please watch video of the parties from SLOPD footage from vehicles and body cams. 4 Thank you, Kathie 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Thursday, November 7, 2024 2:16 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Report: Calls to SLOPD at fraternities 10/31 - 11/2/2024 Attachments:10.31 to 11.2.2024 SLOPD calls to fraternities.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. There were 18 calls for assistance from SLOPD over the past weekend 10/31 - 11/2/2024 at documented fraternity houses. Of all calls, Sigma Nu at 1304 Foothill is the only permitted fraternity. Kappa Chi fraternity had two calls for large parties but is unrecognized by Cal Poly. There was an enormous party at 299 Albert Drive on 10/31 which is an illegal satellite house for Alpha Sigma Phi and has previously received a Notice of Violation from the city for illegal fraternity operations. The PD dispatch log shows a traffic hazard at that address and does not cite the noisy party. I am unsure why the obvious party was not cited as an unruly gathering for causing the streets to be blocked by their guests. I hope you were able to view SLOPD video footage to see for yourselves how disruptive this party was to the neighborhood. There was a call for an assault at 658 Graves Ave on 11/2, the unpermitted main chapter house for Zeta Beta Tau. A social media post said a young woman was slapped by a fraternity member but I do not have verification of that claim. Otherwise, all other calls are for noisy parties. I have attached the report. Thank you, Kathie Walker Date Received Address (main house in bold) Zone Fraternity Clearance Code Call Comments 10/31/2024 10:36 pm 299 Albert Drive1 R-1 Alpha Sigma Phi No Report 80-100 HBD (intox) subjs in street… 10/31/2024 10:43 pm 1688 Mill St2 R-2 Delta Sigma Phi DAC Loud music 11/01/2024 08:49 pm 844 Upham R-2 Kappa Chi (unaffiliated) Citation 100 ppl Loud music and people 11/01/2024 09:11 pm 2090 Hays R-1 Sigma Phi Epsilon Negative Violation Loud music 11/01/2024 09:52 pm 1304 Foothill Blvd R-4 Sigma Nu Citation 100 ppl Loud people and music 11/01/2024 10:16 pm 348 Hathway R-2 Phi Sigma Kappa Citation 100 ppl Loud music and people 11/01/2024 10:24 pm 281 Albert Drive R-1 Delta Upsilon Citation 50 ppl Loud party at loc 11/01/2024 10:47 pm 1304 Foothill Blvd R-4 Sigma Nu (Blank) 3 Loud music and people 11/01/2024 10:49 pm 250 Grand Ave4 R-1 Theta Chi Negative Violation Loud party at loc 11/01/2024 10:49 pm 250 Grand Ave R-1 Theta Chi Call Cancelled Loud people 11/01/2024 10:50 pm 1276 Bond R-1 Phi Kappa Psi Negative Violation Loud music and people in backyard 11/01/2024 10:54 pm 1218 Bond R-1 Alpha Sigma Phi Negative Violation Loud Party 11/01/2024 10:54 pm 2090 Hays R-1 Sigma Phi Epsilon Negative Violation Loud music 11/02/2024 09:20 pm 2148 Santa Ynez R-1 Theta Chi Negative Violation Loud music and people 11/02/2024 09:41 pm 1820 Hope St5 R-1 Theta Chi DAC 150 ppl Loud party 11/02/2024 10:49 pm 658 Graves6 R-4 Zeta Beta Tau Report Approved RP 1021 11/02/2024 11:28 pm 1684 Mill St R-2 Delta Sigma Phi “Registered Party” Loud music and people Noise calls in the vicinity of documented fraternity houses but address not specified: 11/01/2024 09:42 pm 1900 Blk Chorro* R-2 Kappa Chi (unaffiliated) No Report Lg party several hundred ppl in street *Kappa Chi fraternity is on the corner of Upham and the 1900 block of Chorro 1 There was a party at 299 Albert but PD log shows call for “Traffic Hazard” with people blocking the street in front of the address. Unsure why the party was not cited as an unruly gathering as it was evident there was a large party there and it caused the street to be blocked. 2 Delta Sigma Phi’s main fraternity house is at 1684/1688 Mill Street which is the same APN. 3 “Description: incid#=241101131 Reassigned to call 1701, completed call 1681” 4 248/250 Grand Ave is an illegal satellite house for Theta Chi. There was a documented rush event on 10/4/2024 at this location. 5 1820 Hope was main chapter house for Theta Chi in 2022-2023 and seems to be main chapter house this year (2024-2025) per their Instagram posts. 6 PD log shows call for “Assault” at 658 Graves, Zeta Beta Tau. 1 From:CityClerk Sent:Thursday, November 7, 2024 3:41 PM To:kathie walker Cc:Scott, Rick; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:cc Walker - Report: Calls to SLOPD at fraternities 10/31 - 11/2/2024 Attachments:10.31 to 11.2.2024 SLOPD calls to fraternities.pdf BCC: Council All Kathie Walker, Thank you for taking the time to contact the City Council on this issue. The City Council has received your concerns and Rick Scott, Chief of Police who is responsible for responding is copied on this email. Chief Scott or a member of his staff will be following up with you within two business days. City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 From: kathie walker < > Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 2:16 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Report: Calls to SLOPD at fraternities 10/31 - 11/2/2024 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. There were 18 calls for assistance from SLOPD over the past weekend 10/31 - 11/2/2024 at documented fraternity houses. Of all calls, Sigma Nu at 1304 Foothill is the only permitted fraternity. Kappa Chi fraternity had two calls for large parties but is unrecognized by Cal Poly. There was an enormous party at 299 Albert Drive on 10/31 which is an illegal satellite house for Alpha Sigma Phi and has previously received a Notice of Violation from the city for illegal fraternity operations. The PD dispatch log shows a traffic hazard at that address and does not cite the noisy party. I am unsure why the obvious party was not cited as an unruly gathering for causing the streets to be blocked by their guests. I hope you were able to view SLOPD video footage to see for yourselves how disruptive this party was to the neighborhood. There was a call for an assault at 658 Graves Ave on 11/2, the unpermitted main chapter house for Zeta Beta Tau. A social media post said a young woman was slapped by a fraternity member but I do not have verification of that claim. Otherwise, all other calls are for noisy parties. I have attached the report. 2 Thank you, Kathie Walker Date Received Address (main house in bold) Zone Fraternity Clearance Code Call Comments 10/31/2024 10:36 pm 299 Albert Drive1 R-1 Alpha Sigma Phi No Report 80-100 HBD (intox) subjs in street… 10/31/2024 10:43 pm 1688 Mill St2 R-2 Delta Sigma Phi DAC Loud music 11/01/2024 08:49 pm 844 Upham R-2 Kappa Chi (unaffiliated) Citation 100 ppl Loud music and people 11/01/2024 09:11 pm 2090 Hays R-1 Sigma Phi Epsilon Negative Violation Loud music 11/01/2024 09:52 pm 1304 Foothill Blvd R-4 Sigma Nu Citation 100 ppl Loud people and music 11/01/2024 10:16 pm 348 Hathway R-2 Phi Sigma Kappa Citation 100 ppl Loud music and people 11/01/2024 10:24 pm 281 Albert Drive R-1 Delta Upsilon Citation 50 ppl Loud party at loc 11/01/2024 10:47 pm 1304 Foothill Blvd R-4 Sigma Nu (Blank) 3 Loud music and people 11/01/2024 10:49 pm 250 Grand Ave4 R-1 Theta Chi Negative Violation Loud party at loc 11/01/2024 10:49 pm 250 Grand Ave R-1 Theta Chi Call Cancelled Loud people 11/01/2024 10:50 pm 1276 Bond R-1 Phi Kappa Psi Negative Violation Loud music and people in backyard 11/01/2024 10:54 pm 1218 Bond R-1 Alpha Sigma Phi Negative Violation Loud Party 11/01/2024 10:54 pm 2090 Hays R-1 Sigma Phi Epsilon Negative Violation Loud music 11/02/2024 09:20 pm 2148 Santa Ynez R-1 Theta Chi Negative Violation Loud music and people 11/02/2024 09:41 pm 1820 Hope St5 R-1 Theta Chi DAC 150 ppl Loud party 11/02/2024 10:49 pm 658 Graves6 R-4 Zeta Beta Tau Report Approved RP 1021 11/02/2024 11:28 pm 1684 Mill St R-2 Delta Sigma Phi “Registered Party” Loud music and people Noise calls in the vicinity of documented fraternity houses but address not specified: 11/01/2024 09:42 pm 1900 Blk Chorro* R-2 Kappa Chi (unaffiliated) No Report Lg party several hundred ppl in street *Kappa Chi fraternity is on the corner of Upham and the 1900 block of Chorro 1 There was a party at 299 Albert but PD log shows call for “Traffic Hazard” with people blocking the street in front of the address. Unsure why the party was not cited as an unruly gathering as it was evident there was a large party there and it caused the street to be blocked. 2 Delta Sigma Phi’s main fraternity house is at 1684/1688 Mill Street which is the same APN. 3 “Description: incid#=241101131 Reassigned to call 1701, completed call 1681” 4 248/250 Grand Ave is an illegal satellite house for Theta Chi. There was a documented rush event on 10/4/2024 at this location. 5 1820 Hope was main chapter house for Theta Chi in 2022-2023 and seems to be main chapter house this year (2024-2025) per their Instagram posts. 6 PD log shows call for “Assault” at 658 Graves, Zeta Beta Tau. 1 Wooten, Eric From:kathie walker < > Sent:Thursday, November 7, 2024 3:52 PM To:CityClerk Cc:Scott, Rick; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:Re: cc Walker - Report: Calls to SLOPD at fraternities 10/31 - 11/2/2024 It isn't necessary for Chief Scott to respond. I plan to send a weekly report to the City Council with the calls to SLOPD at documented fraternity houses, which are mostly unpermitted and in illegal locations. This is my weekly report for last weekend. The intent is primarily to illustrate the resources used by SLOPD to respond to Cal Poly's fraternities where most disruptive parties in our neighborhoods are held. Hopefully, the Council will understand the need to create a program within Community Development to handle Cal Poly's Greek life operations. The reports could also be useful to show the cost to the City and have Cal Poly chip in to help bear the expense. I will continue to send reports each week that Cal Poly is in session. Thank you, Kathie Walker On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 3:40 PM CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> wrote: BCC: Council All Kathie Walker, Thank you for taking the time to contact the City Council on this issue. The City Council has received your concerns and Rick Scott, Chief of Police who is responsible for responding is copied on this email. Chief Scott or a member of his staff will be following up with you within two business days. City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 2 From: kathie walker < > Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 2:16 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Report: Calls to SLOPD at fraternities 10/31 - 11/2/2024 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. There were 18 calls for assistance from SLOPD over the past weekend 10/31 - 11/2/2024 at documented fraternity houses. Of all calls, Sigma Nu at 1304 Foothill is the only permitted fraternity. Kappa Chi fraternity had two calls for large parties but is unrecognized by Cal Poly. There was an enormous party at 299 Albert Drive on 10/31 which is an illegal satellite house for Alpha Sigma Phi and has previously received a Notice of Violation from the city for illegal fraternity operations. The PD dispatch log shows a traffic hazard at that address and does not cite the noisy party. I am unsure why the obvious party was not cited as an unruly gathering for causing the streets to be blocked by their guests. I hope you were able to view SLOPD video footage to see for yourselves how disruptive this party was to the neighborhood. There was a call for an assault at 658 Graves Ave on 11/2, the unpermitted main chapter house for Zeta Beta Tau. A social media post said a young woman was slapped by a fraternity member but I do not have verification of that claim. Otherwise, all other calls are for noisy parties. I have attached the report. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 From:Armas, Sara Sent:Tuesday, November 12, 2024 10:48 AM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Planning Commission - 11/13/2024, Item 4.a. 280 California Re-review of CUP Hi Kathie Walker, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the commission members. It is now placed in the Planning Commission public archive for tomorrow’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: kathie walker < > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 11:48 AM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: Planning Commission - 11/13/2024, Item 4.a. 280 California Re-review of CUP This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Planning Commissioners, My husband and I attended the Planning Commission's hearing for Lambda Chi Alpha's CUP and felt you were thoughtful in your deliberations. However, misinformation was provided by city staff which resulted in some problematic wording in the CUP. Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) appealed the CUP to the City Council and asked that conditions be added. The appeal included a 7-minute video, which can be viewed here:https://vimeo.com/1019655003/a818f5eb35?share=copy The video helps clarify what information was incorrect and what conditions were requested. The City Council agreed that the noise ordinance cannot be violated under any circumstances and added clarifying wording to the CUP. It also added a condition that three violations within 12 months will result in a re- review of the CUP by the Planning Commission. It also holds the six separate addresses on the parcel collectively responsible for noise citations and the progressive fine structure. It also added a catch-all provision that states the fraternity must follow Federal, State, and local laws or risk losing its CUP. (Unfortunately, three 2 days after the Council approved the CUP, Lambda Chi Alpha had a large, noisy party with fireworks and was issued its third citation in less than a month.) The same conditions in Lambda Chi Alpha's CUP are included in the re-review of Alpha Epsilon Pi's CUP, which is appreciated. We live 500 feet from Alpha Epsilon Pi's fraternity house and have endured extremely disruptive parties at the fraternity, especially over the past few years. The parties are mostly outside, where the property abuts Hathway and Fredericks. At times, when we were inside our house and trying to sleep, we could hear booming music and screaming from parties at the fraternity. Party guests from the fraternity have also blocked Hathway and Fredericks, and last year I had to pull my car over on Fredericks at night to avoid hitting people in the street. I called SLOPD and was told that police had just broken up a party with 300 people at 280 California Blvd so it would take a while for people to disperse from the neighborhood. Our home is between the fraternity and Cal Poly's campus and we frequently hear people after they leave the fraternity's parties late at night. I have walked down to the fraternity multiple times at night, rather than call the police, to ask that they turn down their music. Most of the time, they have cooperated. But they have also asked me why I live in this neighborhood, implying that I do not belong here. The truth is that everyone, including our family, is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property. There is no "right" to have loud fraternity parties in a residential neighborhood, even with a CUP. While we support the staff recommendation for the new CUP for Alpha Epsilon Pi, the most important thing I want the fraternity members to understand is that their fraternity house is surrounded by a residential neighborhood with a diverse population, including families with children. Their neighbors need sleep to function for their jobs and other responsibilities. The CUP grants the ability to operate as a fraternity within a residential zone, with guardrails that ensure they do not disrupt their neighbors. During winter break and summer, the fraternity members "go home". This neighborhood is our home. I'd like them to imagine how they would act and/or feel if their parents or grandparents lived nearby because someone's parents or grandparents do. We appreciate our college-student neighbors. If they need anything, we are here for them. We also appreciate them having respect for the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Sunday, October 13, 2024 2:20 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Item 6b on 10/15/2024: Appeal to Add Conditions to Fraternity Use Permit (Lambda Chi Alpha) Hi Michelle, Yes, Steve is my husband. We don't necessarily agree on everything. lol "I read the full appeal document, and the new added language to the CUP that resulted from the Planning Commission Meeting. It appears that the team and Commission has addressed some of your concerns with their amendments. But, perhaps not all." The added language to the CUP implies that the fraternity can violate the noise ordinance if they get a Special Event Permit, and is asking for at least 4 events for this academic year. During the Planning Commission hearing, the Staff said that it is possible to get a permit that allows the fraternity to violate the noise ordinance. In the Staff's response to a condition that the fraternity not be allowed to violate the noise ordinance with a Special Event Permit, the Staff cites that it's allowed under SLOMC Section 9.12.100 in accordance with Section 17.86.260(B)(5) which specifically states that events can only be approved "with NO POTENTIAL to detrimentally affect those working and living in the vicinity". Staff also cites required findings listed in Section 17.108.040, including that the approved event is "consistent with or an improvement to the character of the neighborhood." Considering these factors and hurdles, it is impossible for the fraternity to overcome these requirements. The point made in my email is that it should not be listed as an option because it sets up expectations that the fraternity can get such permits when it is not possible if you consider what is required by the SLOMC. On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 1:45 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, Thanks for the email. I read the full appeal document, and the new added language to the CUP that resulted from the Planning Commission Meeting. It appears that the team and Commission has addressed some of your concerns with their amendments. But, perhaps not all. Forgive me for being direct, but of all that you note below, can you please tell me some specific suggestions for what you would like changed about the current CUP that has not been addressed? Enforcement is something that we will continue, as you know, to work on regardless of the approval of this CUP or not. Especially at certain times of the year, there is no way for our “city eyes” to be everywhere at once, in a city of 48,000 residents. So, we will continue to rely on neighborhood members to report when bad things and disruptions when they are happening. Thank you. 2 From: kathie walker < > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 11:04 AM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Item 6b on 10/15/2024: Appeal to Add Conditions to Fraternity Use Permit (Lambda Chi Alpha) This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Councilmembers, In June 2024, City Planner Hannah Hanh told me that the conditions of the CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha were based on the two most recent CUPs, which are for two sororities. Each has limited occupancy of 6 and 7 residents, respectively. Fraternity use is much different than sorority use because sororities don’t have parties with alcohol. Sororities go to fraternity houses to party, and fraternities have large parties with alcohol that are extremely disruptive to their neighbors. Even if the City considers sororities and fraternities as the same use, conditions must be added to the proposed CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha to mitigate the known, documented problems associated with noise and fraternity use. The municipal code states that violating the City’s noise ordinance is a public nuisance, is detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of others, and is contrary to public interest. On the other hand, the Staff Report claims that there are “exceptions” to the City’s noise ordinance that enable the Community Development Director to approve Special Event Permits, and such events are allowed to violate the City’s noise ordinance. I can understand issuing a Special Event Permit to allow greater occupancy during certain hours of operation, such as during the day for an event, however allowing a permit to violate the noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood, especially at night, is not reasonable. The municipal code cited by Staff (SLOMC 9.12.100) says that any “exceptions” that allow violation of the noise ordinance can only be granted if all the following three conditions are met: 1. It is subject to limitations “appropriate to protect the public health, safety and welfare from the noise emanating therefrom”, 2. If the [fraternity] applicant can demonstrate that bringing the source of sound or activity into compliance with the noise ordinance “would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the [fraternity] applicant, on the community, or on other persons”, and 3. Must balance the denial [not being allowed to have an event that violates the noise ordinance] as a hardship on the applicant against (1) the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of other persons affected; (2) the adverse impact on property affected; and (3) any other adverse impacts of granting the exception [to allow a fraternity party to violate the noise ordinance]. I’m unsure what limitations cited in item 1. could prevent the neighbors from hearing an outdoor fraternity party with 100 people and/or amplified noise, especially at night when people are trying to sleep, and when the noise ordinance prohibits amplified noise from crossing the property line. Is it truly a “hardship” if the fraternity is not allowed to host an amplified event in a residential neighborhood that viola tes the noise ordinance? The fraternity representative said they will have at least 4 events over the next 9 months that will require Special 3 Event Permits. The fraternity should host those events at a third-party venue so the people living nearby are able to sleep and be rested for work, school, or other life obligations. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly. How many events that violate the noise ordinance (considered by the SLOMC to be a public nuisance, detrimental to health, welfare, and safety, and contrary to public interest ) should the City’s neighborhoods endure? Another factor that isn’t mentioned is that sororities and other guests walk through the neighborhoods to attend these events. They yell, especially after they’ve been drinking, coming and going from the events and this goes on for hours. Fraternity parties impact the neighborhood beyond the fraternity house, itself. The “hardship” of living near a fraternity is borne by the neighbors who are kept awake by loud fraternity parties. There is no way to balance or mitigate the adverse impact for those living and working nearby. It is not reasonable to allow events within a residential neighborhood that violate the noise ordinance which, according to the City’s municipal code, is detrimental to pe ople’s health, safety, and welfare and is a public nuisance. Our family is impacted by fraternities on Foothill Blvd. We can hear them from our house. At times we thought the noise was coming from a block over on Bond St or Hathway Ave because it was so loud, but upon locating the source of the noise, we found the party was at a fraternity on Foothill. A video link to one recent event at a fraternity on Foothill that could be heard from our house is included in my previous correspondence to the Planning Commission. I have attached my correspondence to this email. It took three responses from SLOPD to shut down the fraternity party on Foothill Blvd and officers had to call their sergeant to the scene because the fraternity refused to stop the disruptive party! I’ve wondered if there were any consequences to that fraternity, other than the noise citations. Our family needs to sleep due to work and other family obligations. If my husband can’t sleep, he cannot go to work because he has a safety-related job, and if he can’t work it affects our family’s income. Using the balancing factors cited by City staff, o utlined in SLOMC 9.12.100, a “hardship” on a fraternity for not being able to host large parties with amplified noise in violation of the noise ordinance, does not outweigh the protection of the neighborhood and allowing people to sleep so they can go to work. I honestly can’t believe I have to say this because it seems like common sense. There are obvious blind spots within the City Administration when it comes to dealing with the “fraternity situation” overall, understanding/enforcing the noise they generate, and enforcing the existing CUPs for permitted fraternity houses that flout the law, even when a written complaint is made. There are also 70+ documented illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternity houses throughout the City’s neighborhoods, many operating as the main chapter houses for their fraternities, and they are still going strong a year after I gave a detailed report to Community Development with documentation of the fraternity locations, including fraternities' social media posts. Cal Poly’s AB 524 report also documented the address locations of fraternity events, which confirmed the social media documentation I provided in my report. The standard of proof required to cite these illegal fraternities is a “preponderance of the evidence” which means it is more likely than not. The documentation adequately met that burden, yet the fraternities continue to operate illegally at the addresses that were identified a year ago. Unfortunately, many of those addresses, including the main chapter houses of some fraternities, were not sent Notices of Violation or Advisory Letters. Some were, but even then, some Notices of Violation were missing dates, and many of the Advisory Letters were lost by the Community Development Department, so there is no physical record. I was asked to use the AskSLO app to make reports and did so, but most of the reports I made that specifically identified dates, times, and addresses of illegal fraternity events were not followed up on during the dates, times, and addresses provided to the Community Development Department so were dismissed as unfounded, even though the events occurred. The "fraternity situation" has been so disheartening. And now I am even more baffled after reading the City Staff's arguments AGAINST addition conditions to the fraternity's CUP which promotes wellness in the neighborhood. Is it because Community Development staff are already so overburdened that they don't want to take responsibility for enforcing the CUP? I can't think of any other logical explanation to justify not having a threshold of violations that trigger a review of the CUP by the Planning Commission. Under the “exceptions” cited by City Staff that would allow the fraternity to violate the noise ordinance (9.12.100. A.2.), the municipal code also says, “Any individual who claims to be adversely affected by an allowance of the exception may file a statement with the noise control officer containing any information to support his or her claim. If at any time the noise control officer finds that a sufficient controversy exists regarding an application, a public hearing will be held.” 4 How does “any individual” know that the fraternity has applied for an “exception” to host an event in violation of the noise ordinance? Are neighbors notified before the noise control officer grants the exception so they "have an opportunity file a statement with the noise control officer"? The Staff report says a Special Event Permit can only be approved with the three required findings listed in SLOMC 17.108.040. Finding 2 says the event “is consistent with or an improvement to the character of the neighborhood or zone.” A fraternity party does not improve the character of the neighborhood. Also, a fraternity is not allowed “by right” in an R-4 neighborhood. The CUP is meant to include conditions that mitigate the impact of fraternity use so that the fraternity house fits into the residential neighborhood, as a residence that is permitted to hold gatherings of up to a certain amount of people during certain hours. People of all demographics live in our neighborhood. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario that would be considered an improvement to the character of the neighborhood by allowing a fraternity event to violate the noise ordinance. Please limit Special Event Permits to allow an increase in occupancy limitations for events, and do not allow events to violate the City's noise ordinance in a residential neighborhood. Appeal Issue No. 3 – Limitation reverts to “residential occupancy” limit per condition 4 at night from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. The appeal also asks for a limitation on occupancy from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. based on the maximum allowed residential occupancy limitation listed in condition 4, which says “The fraternity shall be limited to a maximum of 24 residents for the property.” The Staff Response says that the condition cannot limit the type of people (residents vs. non-residents) but acknowledges that it is permissible to limit the number of people for the use. While the wording of the condition cannot list the limitation to residents, it is legal to limit the occupancy to 24 after 10 p.m. Condition 5 limits the number of people for “routine meetings and gatherings” to 48. The reason the limitation of persons on site after 10 p.m. is included in other fraternity CUPs and is requested here is that the noise generated by 48 people is much greater than the noise generated by 24 people. This is a residence in a residential neighborhood. The fraternity representative told the Planning Commission that gatherings happen outdoors, between the front and back houses. Noise generated by 48 people would violate the noise ordinance and disturb the neighbors. The primary concern about the fraternity’s use is noise. I know the noise ordinance isn’t that interesting but here are some main points: -The noise ordinance is a 24/7 regulation and prohibits a "noise disturbance" that is plainly audible 50 feet from the noisemaker. The dictionary defines a "noise disturbance" as the interruption of a settled and peaceful condition. -Amplified sound (television, radio, etc.) is prohibited from crossing the property line after 10 p.m. - Depending on the "character of sound", for example, if the noise contains music or speech, it cannot exceed 45 decibels acros s the property line after 10 p.m. for 30 minutes, which is equivalent to the sound level in a library. Noise that includes music or speech at 65 decibels is prohibited from crossing the property line, which is equivalent to the sound level of a normal conversation. These are the standards outlined in the City’s noise ordinance. There are free apps you can download on your phone that measure decibel levels and it’s surprising how “loud” everyday things are, such as a conversation, which can be disturbing at night when ambient noise levels are low and people nearby are trying to sleep. Limiting the number of people after 10 p.m. is consistent with the required findings per SLOMC 17.86.130, which is also cited in the Findings of the Draft Resolution and states “the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because conditions have been included that place limits on the number of persons allowed on site, restrict activities … and limit potential disturbances to neighboring properties.” Nighttime, after 10 p.m., is a sensitive time when most people are trying to sleep, and it is a reasonable condition to limit the number of people on the property to 24 from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Please add this condition to the fraternity’s CUP. Land Use and Housing Elements in the General Plan 5 The Findings in the Draft Resolution state that the project is consistent with the General Plan because “the project would facilitate Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5 and Housing Element Policy 8.6 (sic) by locating a fraternity in proximity to the Cal Poly SLO campus.” For context, the first sentence of Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5 states, “The City shall work with Cal Poly to develop a proposal to locate fraternities and sororities on campus for consideration by the CSU Board.” The secondary portion of the policy says, “If locations on campus cannot be provided, fraternities and sororities should be limited to medium-high and high-density residential areas near campus.” Please consider the intended meaning of this policy. Allowing more and more fraternities to overtake the residential neighborhoods does not further this policy. The first sentence of Housing Element Policy 8.5 says, “Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University campus . And secondarily, “Until that is possible, they should be located in medium-high to high-density residential zones near campus.” (Policy 8.6, referenced in the Draft Resolution, refers to Cal Poly staff housing and is not applicable here.) Again, the primary sentence in this policy is for fraternities to be located on campus, not in the City's neighborhoods. Allowing more fraternities in the City does not "facilitate" the intended meaning of these policies in the General Plan, as claimed in the Draft Resolution. Housing Element Program 8.15 says, “Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus fraternity/sorority living groups.” That portion of the General Plan was not included in the Draft Resolution. These Programs and Policies were adopted ten years ago, in 2014. What has the City done to further their implementation? The City’s General Plan recognizes that fraternities and sororities do not belong in the City and should be located on Cal Poly’s campus. The Planning Commissioners also said that fraternities should be on Cal Poly’s campus. Since Cal Poly does not have a Greek Row, the burden of housing the fraternities falls on the City and its neighborhoods. To mitigate the negative impacts of a fraternity in a residential neighborhood, a CUP must have conditions that specifically address relevant issues, and those conditions should be listed in the CUP so they are clear to the fraternity. Specific conditions that address common issues for a fraternity’s use should be included in the CUP to establish clear communication of the expectations and the consequences for the fraternity if they don’t adhere to the listed conditions. For instance, the following condition is included in other fraternity CUPs, which was requested in the appeal, and makes sense: “Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, s afety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for the revocation of this permit.” The City Staff implies that the fraternity already has to follow this condition of use because it must follow Federal, State, and local laws and the obligation is listed throughout Chapter 17 of the SLOMC, so it doesn't need to be included as a condition. If it’s not listed as a condition in the CUP, how does the fraternity know that it’s a condition of use? Also, any written complaints, es pecially by community members, are based on the conditions outlined in the CUP. It's confusing if the condition is not specifically listed as a condition in the CUP. This condition and others suggested in the appeal, should be included in the CUP so the conditions are clear to the fraternit y and the community. Finally, you might think that Lambda Chi Alpha would be on their best behavior in anticipation of this appeal. Cal Poly has only been in session for a month, so it seems simple: Don’t have loud parties that violate the noise ordinance and don’t have more than the maximum occupancy of 48 as outlined in the CUP before the City Council hearing on 10/15/2024. But in the past few weeks, the fraternity has had multiple calls to SLOPD for noise. (None were made by me or my family.) During the first week of classes a call was made to SLOPD and the dispatcher noted in the log that the fraternity was partying in the front yard at 1264 Foothill with a sign that said, “YOU HONK, WE DRINK”. 6 After that, there were at least two more loud parties at night and were issued noise citations at 1264 Foothill on 10/2/2024 and 10/9/2024. One citation lists 70 people at the party. During the Planning Commission hearing, the Chair asked the fraternity representative, Thomas Symer, if Lambda Chi Alpha had any satellite houses that held fraternity events in the neighborhood. Mr. Symer said they did not. However, that isn’t true. Lambda Chi Alpha has at least five illegal fraternity houses in the Alta Vista neighborhood that held documented fraternity events during the last academic year, including at 171 Orange, 12 Hathway, 253 Albert, and 278 Albert. Mr. Symer’s name was listed as the person cited at a fraternity event at one of those addresses. Lambda Chi Alpha has continued to hold illegal fraternity events at those addresses during rush recruitment this academic year, for the past two weekends. The fraternity is not even pretending to care about the neighborhood even though they know their use permit is subject to a City Council hearing on 10/15/2024. This emphasizes the need for clear conditions in the CUP that outline the conditions/rules for a nd the consequences of the fraternity use. Conditions are necessary and also beneficial for the community and the fraternity because they clarify the expectations and mitigate the impact of use. As mentioned, a fraternity's use is not “by-right” in an R-4 zone. The reason a CUP is required - to set forth conditions to resolve the negative impacts - is so the fraternity house(s) fits into the R-4 zone as a residential use. I am baffled at the City’s resistance to strengthening the CUP for this large, impactful fraternity use. This CUP will be a model for other fraternity CUPs. It is critical that it contains meaningful conditions that make the fraternity’s obligations clear and mitigate its impact on the neighborhood. I urge you to uphold the appeal to add conditions to the fraternity CUP for the good of the neighborhood and the fraternity, so everyone knows what is expected because it’s listed as a condition in the CUP. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2024 4:35 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Walker Report: SLOPD Noise Calls 11/6 - 11/11/2024 Attachments:SLOPD Noise Calls to Fraternity Houses 11.6-11.11.2024.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello Councilmembers, Something is happening and I'm not sure what it is. There were two calls at fraternities on Wednesday (which is unusual because usually parties are Thursday - Sunday). And this past weekend was quiet, which is amazing. There was one fraternity party on Hathway. It was cited with 60 people. And someone reported a party at a fraternity on Bond on Sunday afternoon. There were no parades of people walking through our neighborhood screaming. We got some quality sleep and it almost felt like we were on vacation. The SLOPD log shows some noise calls in the lower Monterey Heights neighborhood that could possibly be related to fraternities and I've noted those on the report, attached. This is the first weekend since the fall of 2021 that we have not had noisy parties surrounding us all weekend and college students screaming as they pass by late at night (except when Cal Poly is not in session during summer and winter breaks, which we live for.) Something must be happening related to Cal Poly's fraternity operations because the difference between this weekend and others during the academic year was stark. Are you aware of anything that you can share? Thank you for your efforts toward solving the fraternity issue. Sincerely, Kathie Date Received Address (main house in bold) Zone Fraternity Cleared Call Comments Wed 11/06/2024 12:14 am 132 California Blvd R-4 Alpha Gamma Rho Citation Loud music and bonfire in parking lot Wed 11/06/2024 11:07 pm 278 Albert Dr1 R-1 Lambda Chi Alpha No Report RP lives next door to a frat, occupants in backyard, RP thinks they… Fri 11/08/2024 09:30 pm 274 Hathway Ave R-1 Theta Chi Citation 60 ppl Loud party, loud music, singing in backyard Sun 11/10/2024 03:31 pm 1254 Bond St R-1 Phi Gamma Delta Neg Violation Music Noise calls in the vicinity of documented fraternity houses but address not specified: Thu 11/07/2024 11:53 am Foothill & Crandall R-4 Sigma Nu Neg Violation Loud music Thu 11/07/2024 08:54 pm Hope R-1 Phi Kappa Psi* Unable to Locate Loud Subjs/music – Last house on rt or could be on Loomis* *Phi Sigma Kappa (a.k.a. “the pool house”) is near the end of Hope on the right and has a deep lot that backs to Loomis 1 “Welfare Check” per SLOPD dispatch log 1 From:Marx, Jan Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2024 4:55 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Walker Report: SLOPD Noise Calls 11/6 - 11/11/2024 Perhaps it was a 3 day weekend and students left town…? From: kathie walker < > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 4:35 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Walker Report: SLOPD Noise Calls 11/6 - 11/11/2024 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello Councilmembers, Something is happening and I'm not sure what it is. There were two calls at fraternities on Wednesday (which is unusual because usually parties are Thursday - Sunday). And this past weekend was quiet, which is amazing. There was one fraternity party on Hathway. It was cited with 60 people. And someone reported a party at a fraternity on Bond on Sunday afternoon. There were no parades of people walking through our neighborhood screaming. We got some quality sleep and it almost felt like we were on vacation. The SLOPD log shows some noise calls in the lower Monterey Heights neighborhood that could possibly be related to fraternities and I've noted those on the report, attached. This is the first weekend since the fall of 2021 that we have not had noisy parties surrounding us all weekend and college students screaming as they pass by late at night (except when Cal Poly is not in session during summer and winter breaks, which we live for.) Something must be happening related to Cal Poly's fraternity operations because the difference between this weekend and others during the academic year was stark. Are you aware of anything that you can share? Thank you for your efforts toward solving the fraternity issue. Sincerely, Kathie 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2024 7:59 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Walker Report: SLOPD Noise Calls 11/6 - 11/11/2024 Thanks for the report Kathie. Curious to hear if PD or Cal Poly have noted anything. Thanks again. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 4:35 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Walker Report: SLOPD Noise Calls 11/6 - 11/11/2024 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello Councilmembers, Something is happening and I'm not sure what it is. There were two calls at fraternities on Wednesday (which is unusual because usually parties are Thursday - Sunday). And this past weekend was quiet, which is amazing. There was one fraternity party on Hathway. It was cited with 60 people. And someone reported a party at a fraternity on Bond on Sunday afternoon. There were no parades of people walking through our neighborhood screaming. We got some quality sleep and it almost felt like we were on vacation. The SLOPD log shows some noise calls in the lower Monterey Heights neighborhood that could possibly be related to fraternities and I've noted those on the report, attached. This is the first weekend since the fall of 2021 that we have not had noisy parties surrounding us all weekend and college students screaming as they pass by late at night (except when Cal Poly is not in session during summer and winter breaks, which we live for.) Something must be happening related to Cal Poly's fraternity operations because the difference between this weekend and others during the academic year was stark. Are you aware of anything that you can share? Thank you for your efforts toward solving the fraternity issue. Sincerely, Kathie 1 From:CityClerk Sent:Thursday, November 14, 2024 8:30 AM To:kathie walker Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Scott, Rick Subject:cc Walker - Walker Report: SLOPD Noise Calls 11/6 - 11/11/2024 Attachments:SLOPD Noise Calls to Fraternity Houses 11.6-11.11.2024.pdf BCC: Council All Kathie Walker, Thank you for providing your comments to City Council, they were provided directly to them. By copy on this note, Director of Community Development Timmi Tway and Police Chief Rick Scott are being made aware. City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 From: kathie walker < > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 4:35 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Walker Report: SLOPD Noise Calls 11/6 - 11/11/2024 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello Councilmembers, Something is happening and I'm not sure what it is. There were two calls at fraternities on Wednesday (which is unusual because usually parties are Thursday - Sunday). And this past weekend was quiet, which is amazing. There was one fraternity party on Hathway. It was cited with 60 people. And someone reported a party at a fraternity on Bond on Sunday afternoon. There were no parades of people walking through our neighborhood screaming. We got some quality sleep and it almost felt like we were on vacation. The SLOPD log shows some noise calls in the lower Monterey Heights neighborhood that could possibly be related to fraternities and I've noted those on the report, attached. This is the first weekend since the fall of 2021 that we have not had noisy parties surrounding us all weekend and college students screaming as they pass by late at night (except when Cal Poly is not in session during summer and winter breaks, which we live for.) Something must be happening related to Cal Poly's fraternity operations because the difference between this weekend and others during the academic year was stark. Are you aware of anything that you can share? 2 Thank you for your efforts toward solving the fraternity issue. Sincerely, Kathie Date Received Address (main house in bold) Zone Fraternity Cleared Call Comments Wed 11/06/2024 12:14 am 132 California Blvd R-4 Alpha Gamma Rho Citation Loud music and bonfire in parking lot Wed 11/06/2024 11:07 pm 278 Albert Dr1 R-1 Lambda Chi Alpha No Report RP lives next door to a frat, occupants in backyard, RP thinks they… Fri 11/08/2024 09:30 pm 274 Hathway Ave R-1 Theta Chi Citation 60 ppl Loud party, loud music, singing in backyard Sun 11/10/2024 03:31 pm 1254 Bond St R-1 Phi Gamma Delta Neg Violation Music Noise calls in the vicinity of documented fraternity houses but address not specified: Thu 11/07/2024 11:53 am Foothill & Crandall R-4 Sigma Nu Neg Violation Loud music Thu 11/07/2024 08:54 pm Hope R-1 Phi Kappa Psi* Unable to Locate Loud Subjs/music – Last house on rt or could be on Loomis* *Phi Sigma Kappa (a.k.a. “the pool house”) is near the end of Hope on the right and has a deep lot that backs to Loomis 1 “Welfare Check” per SLOPD dispatch log 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Friday, November 15, 2024 10:55 AM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Fwd: Illegal Fraternities and Communication Between SLOPD & Code Enforcement I should have included Council in my message so am forwarding it now. Thank you. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: kathie walker < > Date: Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 10:51 AM Subject: Re: Illegal Fraternities and Communication Between SLOPD & Code Enforcement To: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>, Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>, McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Thank you for the clarification, Chief Scott. Your email also states that SLOPD began flagging "known/nuisance" properties last spring and that was put in place last spring. So presumably, you have identified those addresses somehow. Would you please send me a list of the property addresses that SLOPD considered "known/nuisance" properties? Q: Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible to register their parties through SLOPD. A: Agreed. We put that into place last spring, based on “known/nuisance” properties. However, unknown or not defined “satellite” properties where fraternity people may live can register if they meet the party reg requirements. Again, our goal is to bring this in alignment with Code’s infraction list on this one as well, provided it can be verified by the City. Were you aware that SNAP officers do not want to respond to frats? The SNAP officer expressed this to me last night, and others have told Steve and I that last year. I have sent you correspondence about witnessing bullying and intimidation of SNAP officers by fraternity members, yet they continue to respond to large fraternity parties. Do you feel that is acceptable? If not, what have you done to correct it? To All: I'm not sure why there is a delay in coordination between Code Enforcement and SLOPD. The Planning Commission was mystified about why this was not happening. The report that identified illegal fraternities and Cal Poly's AB 524 report that identified illegal fraternity houses was provided to Community Development over a year ago. SLOPD has been aware of the nuisance properties and fraternity houses in our lower-density residential neighborhoods for years. I have been sending videos of enormous, disruptive parties to SLOPD that were cleared as Negative Violation or Unable to Locate since Fall 2021. Coordination between Code Enforcement and SLOPD should have happened long ago and should be a priority now. Thank you for your efforts. -Kathie 2 On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 10:30 AM Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> wrote: BCC CC: Hi Kathie, I believe the statement you are attributing to me below in your email is not accurate. My last email to you is attached for reference and here is the excerpt from that email on your question specifically. I only agreed with you and stated we are working towards that process. SLOPD does not yet flag “illegal” fraternity houses. This is a new approach, and we are beginning an integrated process where all departments can work from a single list as validated by Code Enforcement, the police department does not evaluate zoning legalities. Q: Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible for a DAC and should receive a citation for a noise violation which means SLOPD responds. A: Agreed. We are currently evaluating a validated and defensible method of identifying “nuisance” locations. Most likely we will utilize Code’s infraction list, provided they encompass the properties which are in fact “satellite” properties and a “nuisance” as they determine. Thank you, Rick Scott Police Chief Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E rscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7256 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re -transmission, 3 dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 9:55 AM To: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Illegal Fraternities and Communication Between SLOPD & Code Enforcement This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Leaders, Unfortunately, we were surrounded by noisy fraternity parties and loud people passing by our house to and from parties last night and it was only Thursday, so it seems this weekend is going to be rough. It is so disappointing and I am angry that we can't live a normal life because of the huge number of illegal fraternities in our neighborhood and their party guests that negatively impact us almost every weekend. Recent correspondence from SLOPD Chief Rick Scott indicated that SLOPD is flagging illegal fraternity houses that are communicated to them by Code Enforcement. Please send me a list of the addresses provided by Community Development to SLOPD as of today, 11/15/2024. Let me know if I need to file a formal request per the CPRA. Otherwise, if this request is sufficient, please forward the addresses to me as soon as you can, within 10 days. 4 There was another equally large and loud party at 1646 Fredericks Street, an illegal fraternity house for Zeta Beta Tau. It was a Christmas-themed party, with sorority members dressed in tiny red shorts and halters wearing Santa hats, and a large tent in the backyard with red and green lights blaring music. Cal Poly registered and approved this party to be held in an R-1 residential neighborhood, even though Cal Poly has been notified by Code Enforcement that it is illegal for fraternities to hold events in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. This property aslo held a rush recruitment event on 10/6/2024 and I was notified by Code Enforcement that the property received a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations for that event. I was not provided a copy of the NOV so am unsure of the date it was issued. Did Code Enforcement communicate these addresses to SLOPD? I was able to speak with the SNAP officers at 299 Albert Drive. I told them the property was a documented fraternity house and it was my understanding, based on communication from the Police Chief, that SLOPD officers would respond to fraternities, including illegal fraternities. The SNAP officers had not heard anything about SLOPD's plan and one of them said it would be great if they didn't have to respond to fraternities. He asked me to contact the Police Chief to re-confirm the plan because (his words) "We don't want to respond to frats." The fraternity guys did not turn down the music or stop the party, even though SNAP officers were there. 5 There is no parity when SNAP officers respond to a large fraternity party and it is unfair to the SNAP officers. I remember when the SNAP program was started and it was not set up for these sorts of calls. It was meant to be a peer-to-peer situation. I have previously communicated with SLOPD leadership that Steve and I witnessed SNAP officers being bullied and berated by some fraternity guys on Albert Drive during Halloweekend 2023. I have also communicated that we have witnessed SNAP walk away from large, loud fraternity parties and clear them as Negative Violations, including 290 Chaplin Lane and 1350 Stafford Street. It was obvious that SNAP was intimidated and uncomfortable citing a large group of fraternity guys. I am unsure why SNAP is still being dispatched to fraternity parties and it should stop. On 11/13/2024, the Planning Commission held a hearing for the re-review of Alpha Epsilon Pi's CUP. I was in support of the CUP and felt the new conditions were fair. However, after hearing testimony and considering the impact of fraternities in our neighborhood on the residents, the Planning Commission expressed deep concern about several aspects of fraternity operations in our neighborhoods and two of six Commissioners voted to deny the CUP. Several of the Commissioners said that there is zero tolerance for future violations of the CUP and they will have no problem revoking the CUP if the fraternity has a single violation that constitutes a public nuisance, such as a noise citation. They specifically verified with the city attorney that a noise citation constitutes a public nuisance because a condition of the CUP states it can be revoked if there is a single incident that constitutes a public nuisance. If you have not seen the hearing, I suggest you watch it. Here is a link. All six Commissioners told Deputy Director Tyler Corey that the fraternity problem needs to be solved. Some directions were (1) make sure there is communication between Code Enforcement and SLOPD so every noise call or code enforcement violation to a fraternity, including illegal fraternities, is communicated between the departments; (2) possibly developing a group such as a task force including Cal Poly, the City, residents of the neighborhood, and the Interfraternity Council to ensure the fraternities are not operating illegally, and relocating fraternities to a Greek Row on Cal Poly's campus, etc.; (3) fund a program or staff for enforcement of illegal fraternities and fraternity operations, including CUPs, and looking at the greater adverse impacts of Cal Poly overall, including its increased enrollment and impact on housing. There will be more discussion about the funding of this as a major city goal during the next Planning Commission meeting on 12/11/2024. The Commission said that Cal Poly has escaped accountability for too long and it's time for them to step up and take ownership of their negative impacts. The tide is finally beginning to turn. For now, I want to dig deeper into the communication between Code Enforcement and SLOPD, and SLOPD's response to illegal fraternities in our neighborhoods. We have been dealing with this since the Fall of 2021 when there was a palpable shift with a significant increase in fraternities and disruptions in our neighborhood. I began sending videos to SLOPD because huge parties were being cleared as Negative Violation or Unable to Locate. Spring 2022 brought the reemergence of St. Fratty's Day with 2,000 people and it exponentially ballooned to 7,000 attendees in 2024. There are many, many illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternities, holding events sanctioned by Cal Poly in our neighborhoods. Let's get the fraternity problem solved. 6 Thank you, Kathie 1 From:Scott, Rick Sent:Tuesday, November 5, 2024 3:41 PM To:kathie walker Cc:Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; McDonald, Whitney; Mickel, Fred; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); CityClerk Subject:RE: Fraternity parties and noise BCC CC: Hi Kathie, Thank you for your email, our team will review your observations for any issues to address. The police department was properly upstaffed this past weekend and the weekend prior to address complaints as they came in, as well as proactive patrols throughout the north end neighborhoods in conjunction with the City’s Safety Enhancement Zone. There are a few exciting updates to pass along based on the following questions/comments from your email: Q: Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible for a DAC and should receive a citation for a noise violation which means SLOPD responds. A: Agreed. We are currently evaluating a validated and defensible method of identifying “nuisance” locations. Most likely we will utilize Code’s infraction list, provided they encompass the properties which are in fact “satellite” properties and a “nuisance” as they determine. Q: Illegal fraternity properties not be eligible for Early Removal through SLOPD to wipe their citation history clean. A: Agreed. All “regular” houses (without a CUP) are offered the ability to do early removal. However, this will most likely change in the Spring as we change our focus on “nuisance” properties according to Code, thus keeping them on the list indefinitely or until they are off “nuisance” or “satellite” properties list. Again, as maintained by Code Enforcement since PD doesn’t determine an “illegal” fraternity. Q: Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible to register their parties through SLOPD. A: Agreed. We put that into place last spring, based on “known/nuisance” properties. However, unknown or not defined “satellite” properties where fraternity people may live can register if they meet the party reg requirements. Again, our goal is to bring this in alignment with Code’s infraction list on this one as well, provided it can be verified by the City. Thank you, Rick Scott Police Chief Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E rscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7256 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 2 This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 12:48 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < Subject: Fraternity parties and noise This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. It was a noisy weekend and I will send a report after the election. But I wanted to sum up the problem in this email. Problem 1 SLO Code Enforcement has met with Cal Poly Greek life administration and advised that fraternity operations are illegal in lower- density neighborhoods, including those near the campus. Despite knowing that fraternity-related events are not permitted in lower-density neighborhoods, Cal Poly administration continues to “approve” and “sanction” fraternity parties at documented fraternity houses in our neighborhood. This has changed the fabric of the City’s neighborhoods and made them unlivable to the average, reasonable person who wants and needs to have the quiet enjoyment of their property. Problem 2 SLO Code Enforcement has contacted property owners of many illegal fraternity houses in the City’s neighborhoods and told them that fraternity operations are against the law, and their property has held documented fraternity events. Despite receiving a notice of violation or advisory letter, the properties continue to host fraternity-related illegal events, including large fraternity parties. These investors are profiting from the rental income from a fraternity and have no stake in the ruination of the quality of life of those who live near their investment properties/fraternity houses, because they -the investors- live in quiet neighborhoods or on large estates. Some of the investors who own multiple properties with illegal fraternity houses and are not personally affected by noise: David Scarry, Sanjay Ganpule, Jerry Lenthall. Problem 3 Code Enforcement and SLOPD do not seem to be sharing information about documented illegal fraternity addresses. This has allowed fraternities to hold disruptive parties without accountability. I've included some party addresses at known fraternity houses from this weekend, below: 1. A legal fraternity is not allowed to register a party.  Documented illegal fraternity houses are registering parties with SLOPD to escape a response from SLOPD if someone calls dispatch about a noisy party. (e.g. Delta Sigma Phi at 1684/1688 Mill Street) 2. A legal fraternity requires a response from SLOPD, not SNAP.  SNAP officers are responding to documented illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhoods. (e.g. Sigma Phi Epsilon at 2090 Hays, Theta Chi at 2149 Santa Ynez, Theta Chi at 250 Grand, Phi Kappa Psi at 1276 Bond, Delta Sigma Phi at 1688 Mill, etc.) 3 3. A legal fraternity is not eligible for a Disturbance Advisement Card (DAC) but is issued a citation when a noise violation is found.  SNAP officers cannot issue citations. They are responding to documented fraternity locations and clearing parties with negative violations or, in some cases, issuing DACs when there are 100 or more people at a party. (e.g. Theta Chi at 1820 Hope Street had 150 people) 4. A legal fraternity is not allowed to clear its citation history through SLOPD’s Early Removal Program.  Property owners of documented illegal fraternity houses with multiple citations, costing the landlord and tenants thousands of dollars, have been allowed to clear their citation history to avoid the financial accountability of expensive noise citations through SLOPD’s “Early Removal Program” (e.g. Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 Hathway Avenue) I'm unsure if 1820 Hope also cleared their history but it was historically the main chapter house for Theta Chi, has a history of noisy parties and citations, but received a DAC this weekend with 150 people at the party. Solution Stop the illegal fraternity events in the city’s neighborhoods by holding Cal Poly and the investor property owners responsible. Obtain the addresses of all fraternity events in our neighborhoods during the last academic year and this academic year from Cal Poly and flag the properties in SLOPD’s system so they are accountable for their disruptive activities. I have already provided the address locations, including social media posts for fraternity rush events this academic year. Declare the properties a public nuisance if necessary, for continued fraternity operations that are making it impossible for residents to rest or sleep. Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible for a DAC and should receive a citation for a noise violation which means SLOPD responds. Illegal fraternity properties not be eligible for Early Removal through SLOPD to wipe their citation history clean. Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible to register their parties through SLOPD. Also, Alpha Sigma Phi had an enormous party at 299 Albert on 10/31 that completely blocked the streets. The PD log shows the party as a traffic hazard and the party was not cited. I suggest it would be helpful for the city manager and council to view SLOPD video footage from their vehicles and body cams to better understand the disruption caused by fraternities in our neighborhood. Same goes for the Delta Upsilon party at 281 Albert on 11/1. Please watch video of the parties from SLOPD footage from vehicles and body cams. Thank you, Kathie 1 From:Scott, Rick Sent:Friday, November 15, 2024 10:30 AM To:kathie walker Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John; McDonald, Whitney Subject:RE: Illegal Fraternities and Communication Between SLOPD & Code Enforcement Attachments:RE: Fraternity parties and noise BCC CC: Hi Kathie, I believe the statement you are attributing to me below in your email is not accurate. My last email to you is attached for reference and here is the excerpt from that email on your question specifically. I only agreed with you and stated we are working towards that process. SLOPD does not yet flag “illegal” fraternity houses. This is a new approach, and we are beginning an integrated process where all departments can work from a single list as validated by Code Enforcement, the police department does not evaluate zoning legalities. Q: Illegal fraternity properties should not be eligible for a DAC and should receive a citation for a noise violation which means SLOPD responds. A: Agreed. We are currently evaluating a validated and defensible method of identifying “nuisance” locations. Most likely we will utilize Code’s infraction list, provided they encompass the properties which are in fact “satellite” properties and a “nuisance” as they determine. Thank you, Rick Scott Police Chief Police Department 1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729 E rscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7256 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: kathie walker < > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 9:55 AM To: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Illegal Fraternities and Communication Between SLOPD & Code Enforcement 2 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Leaders, Unfortunately, we were surrounded by noisy fraternity parties and loud people passing by our house to and from parties last night and it was only Thursday, so it seems this weekend is going to be rough. It is so disappointing and I am angry that we can't live a normal life because of the huge number of illegal fraternities in our neighborhood and their party guests that negatively impact us almost every weekend. Recent correspondence from SLOPD Chief Rick Scott indicated that SLOPD is flagging illegal fraternity houses that are communicated to them by Code Enforcement. Please send me a list of the addresses provided by Community Development to SLOPD as of today, 11/15/2024. Let me know if I need to file a formal request per the CPRA. Otherwise, if this request is sufficient, please forward the addresses to me as soon as you can, within 10 days. The property at 299 Albert Drive had a VERY large, loud party on 11/14/2024. This property is an illegal fraternity Alpha Sigma Pi and received a Notice of Violation (NOV) for illegal fraternity operations on 3/5/2024. A screenshot is below. The owner of this property, Sanjay Ganpule a.k.a. Fredericks LLC and SLOCA LLC, also owns the house next door to us which was an illegal fraternity house two years ago, and owns another illegal fraternity at 1700 Fredericks Street that was issued an NOV. Despite the NOV for 299 Albert Drive, SNAP was dispatched to the party and issued a DAC, which has no fine and essentially zero consequence for the illegal fraternity. 3 There was another equally large and loud party at 1646 Fredericks Street, an illegal fraternity house for Zeta Beta Tau. It was a Christmas-themed party, with sorority members dressed in tiny red shorts and halters wearing Santa hats, and a large tent in the backyard with red and green lights blaring music. Cal Poly registered and approved this party to be held in an R-1 residential neighborhood, even though Cal Poly has been notified by Code Enforcement that it is illegal for fraternities to hold events in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. This property aslo held a rush recruitment event on 10/6/2024 and I was notified by Code Enforcement that the property received a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations for that event. I was not provided a copy of the NOV so am unsure of the date it was issued. Did Code Enforcement communicate these addresses to SLOPD? I was able to speak with the SNAP officers at 299 Albert Drive. I told them the property was a documented fraternity house and it was my understanding, based on communication from the Police Chief, that SLOPD officers would respond to fraternities, including illegal fraternities. The SNAP officers had not heard anything about SLOPD's plan and one of them said it would be great if they didn't have to respond to fraternities. He asked me to contact the Police Chief to re-confirm the plan because (his words) "We don't want to respond to frats." The fraternity guys did not turn down the music or stop the party, even though SNAP officers were there. There is no parity when SNAP officers respond to a large fraternity party and it is unfair to the SNAP officers. I remember when the SNAP program was started and it was not set up for these sorts of calls. It was meant to be a peer-to-peer situation. I have previously communicated with SLOPD leadership that Steve and I witnessed SNAP officers being bullied and berated by some fraternity guys on Albert Drive during Halloweekend 2023. I have also communicated that we have witnessed SNAP walk away from large, loud fraternity parties and clear them as Negative Violations, including 290 Chaplin Lane and 1350 Stafford Street. It was obvious that SNAP was intimidated and uncomfortable citing a large group of fraternity guys. I am unsure why SNAP is still being dispatched to fraternity parties and it should stop. On 11/13/2024, the Planning Commission held a hearing for the re-review of Alpha Epsilon Pi's CUP. I was in support of the CUP and felt the new conditions were fair. However, after hearing testimony and considering the impact of fraternities in our neighborhood on the residents, the Planning Commission expressed deep concern about several aspects of fraternity operations in our neighborhoods and two of six Commissioners voted to deny the CUP. Several of the Commissioners said that there is zero tolerance fo r future violations of the CUP and they will have no problem revoking the CUP if the fraternity has a single violation that constitutes a public nuisance, such as a noise citation. They specifically verified with the city attorney that a noise citation constitutes a public nuisance because a condition of the CUP states it can be revoked if there is a single incident that constitutes a public nuisance. If you have not seen the hearing, I suggest you watch it. Here is a link. All six Commissioners told Deputy Director Tyler Corey that the fraternity problem needs to be solved. Some directions were (1) make sure there is communication between Code Enforcement and SLOPD so every noise call or code enforcement violation to a fraternity, including illegal fraternities, is communicated between the departments; (2) possibly developing a group such as a task force including Cal Poly, the City, residents of the neighborhood, and the Interfraternity Council to ensure the fraternities are not operating illegally, and relocating fraternities to a Greek Row on Cal Poly's campus, etc.; (3) fund a program or staff for enforcement of illegal fraternities and fraternity operations, including CUPs, and looking at the greater adverse impacts of Cal Poly overall, including its increased enrollment and impact on housing. There will be more discussion about the funding of this as a major city goal during the next Planning Commission meeting on 12/11/2024. The Commission said that Cal Poly has escaped accountability for too long and it's time for them to step up and take ownership of their negative impacts. The tide is finally beginning to turn. 4 For now, I want to dig deeper into the communication between Code Enforcement and SLOPD, and SLOPD's response to illegal fraternities in our neighborhoods. We have been dealing with this since the Fall of 2021 when there was a palpable shift with a significant increase in fraternities and disruptions in our neighborhood. I began sending videos to SLOPD because huge parties were being cleared as Negative Violation or Unable to Locate. Spring 2022 brought the reemergence of St. Fratty's Day with 2,000 people and it exponentially ballooned to 7,000 attendees in 2024. There are many, many illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternities, holding events sanctioned by Cal Poly in our neighborhoods. Let's get the fraternity problem solved. Thank you, Kathie 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Friday, November 15, 2024 10:08 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Illegal Fraternities and Communication Between SLOPD & Code Enforcement Hi Kathie, Thanks for the letter. You are very diligent in your writing and reporting to us. And, I am pretty sure you were present at the council meeting when several of us (from the dias) expressed frustration with Cal Poly as well. I wondered if you have given any thought to advocating about this problem to your local state representatives or the CSU Board of Regents? I don’t know if that will help or not, but it is worth advocacy at every level I think. As you know, we are working on things from our end…but every little bit helps, from every angle, I think. Thanks again. Michelle From: kathie walker < > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 9:55 AM To: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Illegal Fraternities and Communication Between SLOPD & Code Enforcement This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Leaders, Unfortunately, we were surrounded by noisy fraternity parties and loud people passing by our house to and from parties last night and it was only Thursday, so it seems this weekend is going to be rough. It is so disappointing and I am angry that we can't live a normal life because of the huge number of illegal fraternities in our neighborhood and their party guests that negatively impact us almost every weekend. Recent correspondence from SLOPD Chief Rick Scott indicated that SLOPD is flagging illegal fraternity houses that are communicated to them by Code Enforcement. Please send me a list of the addresses provided by Community Development to SLOPD as of today, 11/15/2024. Let me know if I need to file a formal request per the CPRA. Otherwise, if this request is sufficient, please forward the addresses to me as soon as you can, within 10 days. The property at 299 Albert Drive had a VERY large, loud party on 11/14/2024. This property is an illegal fraternity Alpha Sigma Pi and received a Notice of Violation (NOV) for illegal fraternity operations on 3/5/2024. A screenshot is below. The owner of this property, Sanjay Ganpule a.k.a. Fredericks LLC and SLOCA LLC, also owns the house next door to us which was an illegal fraternity house two years ago, and owns another illegal fraternity at 1700 Fredericks Street that was issued an NOV. Despite the NOV for 299 Albert Drive, SNAP was dispatched to the party and issued a DAC, which has no fine and essentially zero consequence for the illegal fraternity. 2 There was another equally large and loud party at 1646 Fredericks Street, an illegal fraternity house for Zeta Beta Tau. It was a Christmas-themed party, with sorority members dressed in tiny red shorts and halters wearing Santa hats, and a large tent in the backyard with red and green lights blaring music. Cal Poly registered and approved this party to be held in an R-1 residential neighborhood, even though Cal Poly has been notified by Code Enforcement that it is illegal for fraternities to hold events in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. This property aslo held a rush recruitment event on 10/6/2024 and I was notified by Code Enforcement that the property received a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations for that event. I was not provided a copy of the NOV so am unsure of the date it was issued. Did Code Enforcement communicate these addresses to SLOPD? I was able to speak with the SNAP officers at 299 Albert Drive. I told them the property was a documented fraternity house and it was my understanding, based on communication from the Police Chief, that SLOPD officers would respond to fraternities, including illegal fraternities. The SNAP officers had not heard anything about SLOPD's plan and one of them said it would be great if they didn't have to respond to fraternities. He asked me to contact the Police Chief to re-confirm the plan because (his words) "We don't want to respond to frats." The fraternity guys did not turn down the music or stop the party, even though SNAP officers were there. There is no parity when SNAP officers respond to a large fraternity party and it is unfair to the SNAP officers. I remember when the SNAP program was started and it was not set up for these sorts of calls. It was meant to be a peer-to-peer situation. I have previously communicated with SLOPD leadership that Steve and I witnessed SNAP officers being bullied and berated by some fraternity guys on Albert Drive during Halloweekend 2023. I have also communicated that we have witnessed SNAP walk away from large, loud fraternity parties and clear them as Negative Violations, including 290 Chaplin Lane and 1350 Stafford Street. It was obvious that SNAP was 3 intimidated and uncomfortable citing a large group of fraternity guys. I am unsure why SNAP is still being dispatched to fraternity parties and it should stop. On 11/13/2024, the Planning Commission held a hearing for the re-review of Alpha Epsilon Pi's CUP. I was in support of the CUP and felt the new conditions were fair. However, after hearing testimony and considering the impact of fraternities in our neighborhood on the residents, the Planning Commission expressed deep concern about several aspects of fraternity operations in our neighborhoods and two of six Commissioners voted to deny the CUP. Several of the Commissioners said that there is zero tolerance fo r future violations of the CUP and they will have no problem revoking the CUP if the fraternity has a single violation that constitutes a public nuisance, such as a noise citation. They specifically verified with the city attorney that a noise citation constitutes a public nuisance because a condition of the CUP states it can be revoked if there is a single incident that constitutes a public nuisance. If you have not seen the hearing, I suggest you watch it. Here is a link. All six Commissioners told Deputy Director Tyler Corey that the fraternity problem needs to be solved. Some directions were (1) make sure there is communication between Code Enforcement and SLOPD so every noise call or code enforcement violation to a fraternity, including illegal fraternities, is communicated between the departments; (2) possibly developing a group such as a task force including Cal Poly, the City, residents of the neighborhood, and the Interfraternity Council to ensure the fraternities are not operating illegally, and relocating fraternities to a Greek Row on Cal Poly's campus, etc.; (3) fund a program or staff for enforcement of illegal fraternities and fraternity operations, including CUPs, and looking at the greater adverse impacts of Cal Poly overall, including its increased enrollment and impact on housing. There will be more discussion about the funding of this as a major city goal during the next Planning Commission meeting on 12/11/2024. The Commission said that Cal Poly has escaped accountability for too long and it's time for them to step up and take ownership of their negative impacts. The tide is finally beginning to turn. For now, I want to dig deeper into the communication between Code Enforcement and SLOPD, and SLOPD's response to illegal fraternities in our neighborhoods. We have been dealing with this since the Fall of 2021 when there was a palpable shift with a significant increase in fraternities and disruptions in our neighborhood. I began sending videos to SLOPD because huge parties were being cleared as Negative Violation or Unable to Locate. Spring 2022 brought the reemergence of St. Fratty's Day with 2,000 people and it exponentially ballooned to 7,000 attendees in 2024. There are many, many illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternities, holding events sanctioned by Cal Poly in our neighborhoods. Let's get the fraternity problem solved. Thank you, Kathie 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Friday, November 15, 2024 11:06 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Illegal Fraternities and Communication Between SLOPD & Code Enforcement Hi Michelle, Thank you so much for the response. Last night was horrendous with so many fraternity parties and I guess it was a difficult realization that fraternities are not curbing their parties, after feeling hopeful last weekend because it was quiet. And there are more tonight. My nerves are a bit frazzled, as well, because there was a scary incident on Wednesday when a man climbed over our fence onto our property, just after my husband left for work, and he made his way up some stairs to our house. Our dog chased him away while I was screaming. So I've also been processing that and not sleeping much. I sent a video from our surveillance of the guy to SLOPD and they were able to find him that night at another residence, he was arrested and is in jail. So kudos to SLOPD! I love your suggestion about approaching the Regents and other local state representatives. I crossed paths with Dawn Addis years ago when I was helping run Heidi Harmon's campaign but she may not remember me. I'm not super comfortable in the forefront but am great as a supporter in the background for more extroverted people who enjoy the spotlight. I may have to step out of my comfort zone and be more public with this issue to get it solved. To touch briefly on another matter that is somewhat related to Greek life, I am very nervous about St. Fratty's Day and have been meeting with neighbors to strategize. Unfortunately, there has not been outreach from the city and we feel alone over here. I've been attending SCLC for the past year. During the first meeting this academic year, there was an exercise to choose goals for initiatives. Whitney McDonald's only goal was to stop St. Fratty's Day. I was teamed up with Whitney and someone from Cal Poly in a small group, and the Cal Poly rep said that she's on the task force for St. Fratty's Day and Cal Poly was leaning toward holding a sanctioned event in the city. Whitney looked sideways and shook her head. It was the first time she'd heard of Cal Poly's plans for the City. During the next meeting, the Chair (Ashely Spragins) showed a list of initiatives, and St. Fratty's Day was not included. Whitney spoke up and it took some arm-twisting from city representatives on SCLC, including Erica Stewart and me, to get it included. (I happened to be sitting in for Mila during that time.) I reminded the group Rick Scott told SCLC last year in his debrief of St. Fratty's Day, that it needed to be student-led and SCLC was the best forum for that. Overall, I feel Cal Poly and its task force for St. Fratty's Day does not have the City's best interest in mind. Their focus is on protecting their campus and dorms. This sort of lines up with their approach to their illegal fraternities, which they are not sharing with the city but are still sa nctioning parties. It would be great if the City took a stronger stance to look out for itself. A report from Cal Poly's task force is a standing item on the SCLC agenda so I look forward to hearing what they say on Thursday. Thank you for your email and constructive ideas to approach the fraternity problem from another angle. I know you share my frustration and agree that the issue should be solved. Your communication is appreciated! (Sorry for all of the emails.) 2 -Kathie On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 10:08 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, Thanks for the letter. You are very diligent in your writing and reporting to us. And, I am pretty sure you were present at the council meeting when several of us (from the dias) expressed frustration with Cal Poly as well. I wondered if you have given any thought to advocating about this problem to your local state representatives or the CSU Board of Regents? I don’t know if that will help or not, but it is worth advocacy at every level I think. As you know, we are working on things from our end…but every little bit helps, from every angle, I think. Thanks again. Michelle From: kathie walker < > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 9:55 AM To: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Illegal Fraternities and Communication Between SLOPD & Code Enforcement This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Leaders, Unfortunately, we were surrounded by noisy fraternity parties and loud people passing by our house to and from parties last night and it was only Thursday, so it seems this weekend is going to be rough. It is so disappointing and I am angry that we can't live a normal life because of the huge number of illegal fraternities in our neighborhood and their party guests that negatively impact us almost every weekend. Recent correspondence from SLOPD Chief Rick Scott indicated that SLOPD is flagging illegal fraternity houses that are communicated to them by Code Enforcement. Please send me a list of the addresses provided by Community Development to SLOPD as of today, 11/15/2024. Let me know if I need to file a formal request per 3 the CPRA. Otherwise, if this request is sufficient, please forward the addresses to me as soon as you can, within 10 days. The property at 299 Albert Drive had a VERY large, loud party on 11/14/2024. This property is an illegal fraternity Alpha Sigma Pi and received a Notice of Violation (NOV) for illegal fraternity operations on 3/5/2024. A screenshot is below. The owner of this property, Sanjay Ganpule a.k.a. Fredericks LLC and SLOCA LLC, also owns the house next door to us which was an illegal fraternity house two years ago, and owns another illegal fraternity at 1700 Fredericks Street that was issued an NOV. Despite the NOV for 299 Albert Drive, SNAP was dispatched to the party and issued a DAC, which has no fine and essentially zero consequence for the illegal fraternity. There was another equally large and loud party at 1646 Fredericks Street, an illegal fraternity house for Zeta Beta Tau. It was a Christmas-themed party, with sorority members dressed in tiny red shorts and halters wearing Santa hats, and a large tent in the backyard with red and green lights blaring music. Cal Poly registered and approved this party to be held in an R-1 residential neighborhood, even though Cal Poly has been notified by Code Enforcement that it is illegal for fraternities to hold events in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. This property aslo held a rush recruitment event on 10/6/2024 and I was notified by Code Enforcement that the property received a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations for that event. I was not provided a copy of the NOV so am unsure of the date it was issued. 4 Did Code Enforcement communicate these addresses to SLOPD? I was able to speak with the SNAP officers at 299 Albert Drive. I told them the property was a documented fraternity house and it was my understanding, based on communication from the Police Chief, that SLOPD officers would respond to fraternities, including illegal fraternities. The SNAP officers had not heard anything about SLOPD's plan and one of them said it would be great if they didn't have to respond to fraternities. He asked me to contact the Police Chief to re-confirm the plan because (his words) "We don't want to respond to frats." The fraternity guys did not turn down the music or stop the party, even though SNAP officers were there. There is no parity when SNAP officers respond to a large fraternity party and it is unfair to the SNAP officers. I remember when the SNAP program was started and it was not set up for these sorts of calls. It was meant to be a peer-to-peer situation. I have previously communicated with SLOPD leadership that Steve and I witnessed SNAP officers being bullied and berated by some fraternity guys on Albert Drive during Halloweekend 2023. I have also communicated that we have witnessed SNAP walk away from large, loud fraternity parties and clear them as Negative Violations, including 290 Chaplin Lane and 1350 Stafford Street. It was obvious that SNAP was intimidated and uncomfortable citing a large group of fraternity guys. I am unsure why SNAP is still being dispatched to fraternity parties and it should stop. On 11/13/2024, the Planning Commission held a hearing for the re-review of Alpha Epsilon Pi's CUP. I was in support of the CUP and felt the new conditions were fair. However, after hearing testimony and considering the impact of fraternities in our neighborhood on the residents, the Planning Commission expressed deep concern about several aspects of fraternity operations in our neighborhoods and two of six Commissioners voted to deny the CUP. Several of the Commissioners said that there is zero tolerance for future violations of the CUP and they will have no problem revoking the CUP if the fraternity has a single violation that constitutes a public nuisance, such as a noise citation. They specifically verified with the city attorney that a noise citation constitutes a public nuisance because a condition of the CUP states it can be revoked if there is a single incident that constitutes a public nuisance. If you have not seen the hearing, I suggest you watch it. Here is a link. All six Commissioners told Deputy Director Tyler Corey that the fraternity problem needs to be solved. Some directions were (1) make sure there is communication between Code Enforcement and SLOPD so every noise call or code enforcement violation to a fraternity, including illegal fraternities, is communicated between the departments; (2) possibly developing a group such as a task force including Cal Poly, the City, residents of the neighborhood, and the Interfraternity Council to ensure the fraternities are not operating illegally, and relocating fraternities to a Greek Row on Cal Poly's campus, etc.; (3) fund a program or staff for enforcement of illegal fraternities and fraternity operations, including CUPs, and looking at the greater adverse impacts of Cal Poly overall, including its increased enrollment and impact on housing. There will be more discussion about the funding of this as a major city goal during the next Planning Commission meeting on 12/11/2024. The Commission said that Cal Poly has escaped accountability for too long and it's time for them to step up and take ownership of their negative impacts. The tide is finally beginning to turn. 5 For now, I want to dig deeper into the communication between Code Enforcement and SLOPD, and SLOPD's response to illegal fraternities in our neighborhoods. We have been dealing with this since the Fall of 2021 when there was a palpable shift with a significant increase in fraternities and disruptions in our neighborhood. I began sending videos to SLOPD because huge parties were being cleared as Negative Violation or Unable to Locate. Spring 2022 brought the reemergence of St. Fratty's Day with 2,000 people and it exponentially ballooned to 7,000 attendees in 2024. There are many, many illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternities, holding events sanctioned by Cal Poly in our neighborhoods. Let's get the fraternity problem solved. Thank you, Kathie