HomeMy WebLinkAbout_PRR25328 Emails Batch 41
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Monday, February 17, 2025 4:17 PM
To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John
Cc:Brett Cross; Carolyn Smith; Sandra Rowley
Subject:Questions about fraternity operations
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hi Timmi and John,
I'm hoping you can answer some questions for me.
1. Have the addresses for Lambda Chi Alpha (identified in its CUP) been given to SLOPD as a fraternity? The
address in SLOPD's system does not identify a fraternity at that address. A current screenshot is below.
Usually, if there is a CUP, the fraternity is identified in SLOPD's database as a fraternity, as shown below for
Beta Theta Pi.
2. How many noise citations has Lambda Chi Alpha had since its CUP was approved?
3. Does Beta Theta Pi have a CUP at 1327 Foothill? Even though it is shown as a fraternity in SLOPD's database,
my records don't show a CUP for 1327 Foothill Blvd.
4. There is a CUP for 1290 & 1292 Foothill, 123, 135, 137 & 175 Crandall Way (#109-05). It was a supplement to
the CUP for 1292 Foothill (#174-97) and was included in the report I gave you on 11/8/2023, which I have
attached to this email on pages 28-32 of 95 pages. There have been noise calls for the addresses on Crandall
Way but they do not show up in SLOPD's database as a fraternity. It appears the terms of the CUP were never
fulfilled, therefore perhaps that CUP is not valid but I'm not sure. Would you please let me know the status of
those addresses? Sigma Nu occupies 1292 Foothill and a sorority occupies 1290 Foothill, and I believe Sigma
Nu also occupies the properties on Crandall Way. I'm just trying to get my records straight so would greatly
appreciate some clarification about this.
I have other questions about the ongoing fraternity operations at documented fraternity houses in R-1 and R-2
neighborhoods that have not been flagged in SLOPD's database so Cal Poly and Cuesta students who work as
2
SNAP officers are sent to those locations instead of sworn officers. SNAP officers can only issue Disturbance
Advisement Card (DAC) warnings, not citations. Also, fraternities are not eligible for DACs when a noise call is
made so fraternities are holding large events at those illegal fraternity; houses to get around the consequences
of an automatic response from SLOPD. It would be great if the database was updated in SLOPD's system so we
can get a handle on the illegal fraternity house operations in our neighborhood.
My main goal is consistency between code enforcement/community development and SLOPD's database.
Thank you for your help.
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 October 2023 (2).pdf
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of
this picture from the Internet.
1
From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Sent:Thursday, February 20, 2025 7:43 PM
To:kathie walker; Mezzapesa, John
Cc:Brett Cross; Carolyn Smith; Sandra Rowley
Subject:RE: Questions about fraternity operations
Hi Kathie,
I want to acknowledge that we have received your email, I apologize for the delay in our response. I believe John is
looking into these things and will have a response for you soon. Thanks
Timmi
From: kathie walker < >
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 4:17 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>
Cc: Brett Cross < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Sandra Rowley <
Subject: Questions about fraternity operations
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hi Timmi and John,
I'm hoping you can answer some questions for me.
1. Have the addresses for Lambda Chi Alpha (identified in its CUP) been given to SLOPD as a fraternity? The
address in SLOPD's system does not identify a fraternity at that address. A current screenshot is below.
Usually, if there is a CUP, the fraternity is identified in SLOPD's database as a fraternity, as shown below for
Beta Theta Pi.
2. How many noise citations has Lambda Chi Alpha had since its CUP was approved?
2
3. Does Beta Theta Pi have a CUP at 1327 Foothill? Even though it is shown as a fraternity in SLOPD's database,
my records don't show a CUP for 1327 Foothill Blvd.
4. There is a CUP for 1290 & 1292 Foothill, 123, 135, 137 & 175 Crandall Way (#109-05). It was a supplement to
the CUP for 1292 Foothill (#174-97) and was included in the report I gave you on 11/8/2023, which I have
attached to this email on pages 28-32 of 95 pages. There have been noise calls for the addresses on Crandall
Way but they do not show up in SLOPD's database as a fraternity. It appears the terms of the CUP were never
fulfilled, therefore perhaps that CUP is not valid but I'm not sure. Would you please let me know the status of
those addresses? Sigma Nu occupies 1292 Foothill and a sorority occupies 1290 Foothill, and I believe Sigma
Nu also occupies the properties on Crandall Way. I'm just trying to get my records straight so would greatly
appreciate some clarification about this.
I have other questions about the ongoing fraternity operations at documented fraternity houses in R-1 and R-2
neighborhoods that have not been flagged in SLOPD's database so Cal Poly and Cuesta students who work as
SNAP officers are sent to those locations instead of sworn officers. SNAP officers can only issue Disturbance
Advisement Card (DAC) warnings, not citations. Also, fraternities are not eligible for DACs when a noise call is
made so fraternities are holding large events at those illegal fraternity; houses to get around the consequences
of an automatic response from SLOPD. It would be great if the database was updated in SLOPD's system so we
can get a handle on the illegal fraternity house operations in our neighborhood.
My main goal is consistency between code enforcement/community development and SLOPD's database.
Thank you for your help.
Kathie Walker
Fraternity Report to SLO CDD Tway and Mezzapesa October 2023 (2).pdf
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Thursday, February 20, 2025 8:31 PM
To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Cc:Mezzapesa, John; Brett Cross; Carolyn Smith; Sandra Rowley
Subject:Re: Questions about fraternity operations
Thank you, Timmi.
At today's SCLC meeting, Mila LaBarre (neighborhood representative on the SCLC) brought up the situation with
winter rush events held at illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood despite the presentation made by code
enforcement at Cal Poly's Greek life event on 1/11/2025. She explained that when city officials went to the
neighborhood and observed rush events on 1/17/2025, fraternities moved their tables with laptops into the
backyards and denied they were holding rush events. Then fraternities would not answer the door when city
officials knocked at addresses where rush events were advertised and guys could be heard in the backyard.
Jason Mockford is a member of SCLC and said he is meeting with you next week so I am trying to put together
the information for you, including photos and social media posts, the fraternity events held at illegal fraternity
houses during the fall and winter rush.
Also, Christine Dietrick emailed me a few weeks ago about a central repository for all the information to enable
better communication between Community Development and SLOPD. Such a great idea! She hinted that she is
working to find a solution. I don't think Cal Poly is likely to cooperate without legal intervention (based on my
experience and conversations with other people who work closely with Cal Poly administration) but am hoping
for the best.
-Kathie
On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 7:43 PM Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Kathie,
I want to acknowledge that we have received your email, I apologize for the delay in our response. I believe John is
looking into these things and will have a response for you soon. Thanks
Timmi
From: kathie walker < >
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 4:17 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>
Cc: Brett Cross < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Sandra Rowley <
Subject: Questions about fraternity operations
2
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hi Timmi and John,
I'm hoping you can answer some questions for me.
1. Have the addresses for Lambda Chi Alpha (identified in its CUP) been given to SLOPD as a fraternity? The
address in SLOPD's system does not identify a fraternity at that address. A current screenshot is below.
Usually, if there is a CUP, the fraternity is identified in SLOPD's database as a fraternity, as shown below for
Beta Theta Pi.
2. How many noise citations has Lambda Chi Alpha had since its CUP was approved?
3. Does Beta Theta Pi have a CUP at 1327 Foothill? Even though it is shown as a fraternity in SLOPD's database,
my records don't show a CUP for 1327 Foothill Blvd.
4. There is a CUP for 1290 & 1292 Foothill, 123, 135, 137 & 175 Crandall Way (#109-05). It was a supplement to
the CUP for 1292 Foothill (#174-97) and was included in the report I gave you on 11/8/2023, which I have
attached to this email on pages 28-32 of 95 pages. There have been noise calls for the addresses on Crandall
Way but they do not show up in SLOPD's database as a fraternity. It appears the terms of the CUP were never
3
fulfilled, therefore perhaps that CUP is not valid but I'm not sure. Would you please let me know the status of
those addresses? Sigma Nu occupies 1292 Foothill and a sorority occupies 1290 Foothill, and I believe Sigma
Nu also occupies the properties on Crandall Way. I'm just trying to get my records straight so would greatly
appreciate some clarification about this.
I have other questions about the ongoing fraternity operations at documented fraternity houses in R-1 and R-2
neighborhoods that have not been flagged in SLOPD's database so Cal Poly and Cuesta students who work as
SNAP officers are sent to those locations instead of sworn officers. SNAP officers can only issue Disturbance
Advisement Card (DAC) warnings, not citations. Also, fraternities are not eligible for DACs when a noise call is
made so fraternities are holding large events at those illegal fraternity; houses to get around the consequences
of an automatic response from SLOPD. It would be great if the database was updated in SLOPD's system so we
can get a handle on the illegal fraternity house operations in our neighborhood.
My main goal is consistency between code enforcement/community development and SLOPD's database.
Thank you for your help.
Kathie Walker
Fraternity Report to SLO CDD Tway and Mezzapesa October 2023 (2).pdf
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 3:31 PM
To:Mezzapesa, John; Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Cc:Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross
Subject:CUP for 1264 Foothill - Lambda Chi Alpha
Flag Status:Flagged
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Director Tway and Mr. Mezzapesa,
This past weekend, my neighbor on Kentucky Street called me because he was upset that there were ongoing
noisy parties from Foothill Blvd that he could hear from his house. Another neighbor on Hathway Avenue also
heard the loud party complained to SLOPD. My neighbor on Kentucky Street wondered if I could hear the
parties. He said he'd called SLOPD to report the noise in the 1300 block of Foothill (he guessed) and the noise
stopped for a short time, but then resumed. So he called SLOPD again.
SLOPD had Officer Brewer call my neighbor and the officer said he'd responded to Foothill but the fraternity saw
his police unit and turned down the noise, therefore he was not able to document the party. However, the party
was at 1264 Foothill and is noted in the SLOPD dispatch log for the weekend. You can see that the call
comments on the PD log indicate my neighbor reported a loud party in the 1300-1400 block of Foothill but
wasn't sure of the exact address. Officer Brewer identified the party at 1264 Foothill but since the fraternity
members saw his police vehicle, they turned down the music before he could get out of his vehicle to document
the party so he did not issue a citation.
Nonetheless, Lambda Chi Alpha at 1264 Foothill Blvd has been issued three noise citations, not including this
call or other complaints that were not cited, since the fraternity received approval for its CUP. This meets the
threshold of three violations listed in the CUP which triggers re-review of the fraternity's CUP with the Planning
Commission.
Additionally, they held a live music event at 1264 Foothill Blvd on 2/8/2025. Although this event was not cited by
SLOPD, it is still a violation of the conditions of the fraternity's CUP.
2
A link to the event is posted in their Instagram bio. Tickets were purchased through eventbrite.com.
3
I appreciate that you are taking the fraternity problem seriously and working toward a solution. Historically,
before you were employed with the city, Community Development and Code Enforcement did not keep track of
the fraternity CUPs or illegal fraternity locations, which led to the total breakdown of our neighborhood. I remain
optimistic that we will be able to solve the problem. For example, Alpha Epsilon Pi seems to be taking the matter
seriously since its re-review with the Planning Commission and has been much more respectful. However,
Lambda Chi Alpha has flouted the terms of its CUP and has held disruptive parties and events, in violation of the
conditions of its CUP.
Please hold Lambda Chi Alpha responsible for these violations. The CUP states that three violations within 12
months trigger a re-review of the CUP and we have met that threshold, therefore there should be a re-review of
the fraternity's CUP. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Kathie Walker
1
From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 4:08 PM
To:kathie walker; Mezzapesa, John
Cc:Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross; Corey, Tyler
Subject:RE: CUP for 1264 Foothill - Lambda Chi Alpha
Hi Kathie,
Thank you for this email and the information. Code Enforcement and Planning will be reviewing it and supporting
information to confirm that a re-review is required. We will let you know when it is scheduled for Planning
Commission,
Thank you,
Timmi
From: kathie walker < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 3:31 PM
To: Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>
Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Brett Cross <
Subject: CUP for 1264 Foothill - Lambda Chi Alpha
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Director Tway and Mr. Mezzapesa,
This past weekend, my neighbor on Kentucky Street called me because he was upset that there were ongoing
noisy parties from Foothill Blvd that he could hear from his house. Another neighbor on Hathway Avenue also
heard the loud party complained to SLOPD. My neighbor on Kentucky Street wondered if I could hear the
parties. He said he'd called SLOPD to report the noise in the 1300 block of Foothill (he guessed) and the noise
stopped for a short time, but then resumed. So he called SLOPD again.
SLOPD had Officer Brewer call my neighbor and the officer said he'd responded to Foothill but the fraternity saw
his police unit and turned down the noise, therefore he was not able to document the party. However, the party
was at 1264 Foothill and is noted in the SLOPD dispatch log for the weekend. You can see that the call
comments on the PD log indicate my neighbor reported a loud party in the 1300-1400 block of Foothill but
wasn't sure of the exact address. Officer Brewer identified the party at 1264 Foothill but since the fraternity
members saw his police vehicle, they turned down the music before he could get out of his vehicle to document
the party so he did not issue a citation.
2
Nonetheless, Lambda Chi Alpha at 1264 Foothill Blvd has been issued three noise citations, not including this
call or other complaints that were not cited, since the fraternity received approval for its CUP. This meets the
threshold of three violations listed in the CUP which triggers re-review of the fraternity's CUP with the Planning
Commission.
Additionally, they held a live music event at 1264 Foothill Blvd on 2/8/2025. Although this event was not cited by
SLOPD, it is still a violation of the conditions of the fraternity's CUP.
A link to the event is posted in their Instagram bio. Tickets were purchased through eventbrite.com.
3
I appreciate that you are taking the fraternity problem seriously and working toward a solution. Historically,
before you were employed with the city, Community Development and Code Enforcement did not keep track of
the fraternity CUPs or illegal fraternity locations, which led to the total breakdown of our neighborhood. I remain
optimistic that we will be able to solve the problem. For example, Alpha Epsilon Pi seems to be taking the matter
seriously since its re-review with the Planning Commission and has been much more respectful. However,
Lambda Chi Alpha has flouted the terms of its CUP and has held disruptive parties and events, in violation of the
conditions of its CUP.
Please hold Lambda Chi Alpha responsible for these violations. The CUP states that three violations within 12
months trigger a re-review of the CUP and we have met that threshold, therefore there should be a re-review of
the fraternity's CUP. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
4
Respectfully,
Kathie Walker
1
From:Mezzapesa, John
Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 12:53 PM
To:kathie walker; Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Cc:Brett Cross; Carolyn Smith; Sandra Rowley
Subject:RE: Questions about fraternity operations
Hi Kathie,
Thanks for reaching out with your concerns.
Please see my responses below.
1. Have the addresses for Lambda Chi Alpha (identified in its CUP) been given to SLOPD as a fraternity? The
address in SLOPD's system does not identify a fraternity at that address.
I checked with PD and they do have the address for Lambda Chi Alpha (1264 Foothill) identified as
a fraternity in their system.
2. How many noise citations has Lambda Chi Alpha had since its CUP was approved?
I checked with PD - since approval, three citations have been issued at 1264 Foothill.
3. Does Beta Theta Pi have a CUP at 1327 Foothill? Even though it is shown as a fraternity in SLOPD's
database, my records don't show a CUP for 1327 Foothill Blvd.
There is no issued CUP for a fraternity at 1327 Foothill. An initial application was received to
establish a fraternity in September of 2024. It underwent one review and was returned to the
applicant with comments in October. A second submission was received on February 5 and is
currently under review. I would also note that this location has received a few noise citations from
PD and subsequent notices & citations for land use violations from our department. This
information has been provided to planning to be included for consideration regarding their
recommendation to planning commission.
4. There is a CUP for 1290 & 1292 Foothill, 123, 135, 137 & 175 Crandall Way (#109-05). It was a
supplement to the CUP for 1292 Foothill (#174-97) and was included in the report I gave you on
11/8/2023, which I have attached to this email on pages 28-32 of 95 pages. There have been noise calls
for the addresses on Crandall Way but they do not show up in SLOPD's database as a fraternity. It
appears the terms of the CUP were never fulfilled, therefore perhaps that CUP is not valid but I'm not
sure. Would you please let me know the status of those addresses? Sigma Nu occupies 1292 Foothill
and a sorority occupies 1290 Foothill, and I believe Sigma Nu also occupies the properties on Crandall
Way. I'm just trying to get my records straight so would greatly appreciate some clarification about this.
The CUP (109-05) is valid and encompasses all addresses listed on the permit (1290 & 1292
Foothill, 123, 135, 137, 175 Crandall). I don’t think we have any noise citations confirmed to have
been related to a sponsored event that have resulted in CUP violations for these addresses.
Let me know if I can provide further clarification.
2
Regards,
John Mezzapesa
Interim Deputy Building Official
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: Monday, February 17, 2025 4:17 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>
Cc: Brett Cross < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Sandra Rowley <
Subject: Questions about fraternity operations
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hi Timmi and John,
I'm hoping you can answer some questions for me.
1. Have the addresses for Lambda Chi Alpha (identified in its CUP) been given to SLOPD as a fraternity? The
address in SLOPD's system does not identify a fraternity at that address. A current screenshot is below.
Usually, if there is a CUP, the fraternity is identified in SLOPD's database as a fraternity, as shown below for
Beta Theta Pi.
2. How many noise citations has Lambda Chi Alpha had since its CUP was approved?
3. Does Beta Theta Pi have a CUP at 1327 Foothill? Even though it is shown as a fraternity in SLOPD's database,
my records don't show a CUP for 1327 Foothill Blvd.
3
4. There is a CUP for 1290 & 1292 Foothill, 123, 135, 137 & 175 Crandall Way (#109-05). It was a supplement to
the CUP for 1292 Foothill (#174-97) and was included in the report I gave you on 11/8/2023, which I have
attached to this email on pages 28-32 of 95 pages. There have been noise calls for the addresses on Crandall
Way but they do not show up in SLOPD's database as a fraternity. It appears the terms of the CUP were never
fulfilled, therefore perhaps that CUP is not valid but I'm not sure. Would you please let me know the status of
those addresses? Sigma Nu occupies 1292 Foothill and a sorority occupies 1290 Foothill, and I believe Sigma
Nu also occupies the properties on Crandall Way. I'm just trying to get my records straight so would greatly
appreciate some clarification about this.
I have other questions about the ongoing fraternity operations at documented fraternity houses in R-1 and R-2
neighborhoods that have not been flagged in SLOPD's database so Cal Poly and Cuesta students who work as
SNAP officers are sent to those locations instead of sworn officers. SNAP officers can only issue Disturbance
Advisement Card (DAC) warnings, not citations. Also, fraternities are not eligible for DACs when a noise call is
made so fraternities are holding large events at those illegal fraternity; houses to get around the consequences
of an automatic response from SLOPD. It would be great if the database was updated in SLOPD's system so we
can get a handle on the illegal fraternity house operations in our neighborhood.
My main goal is consistency between code enforcement/community development and SLOPD's database.
Thank you for your help.
Kathie Walker
Fraternity Report to SLO CDD Tway and Mezzapesa October 2023 (2).pdf
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 1:43 PM
To:Mezzapesa, John
Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Brett Cross; Carolyn Smith; Sandra Rowley; Scott, Rick; Wallace,
Christine
Subject:Re: Questions about fraternity operations
John,
Thank you for the information.
Beta Theta Pi received another citation this weekend. One of my neighbors called me about it on Saturday and
was very upset because they could hear the noise from a couple of blocks away. The property also received
citations on 2/7/2025 and 2/13/2025. I believe this address was also issued an unruly gathering citation on
5/25/2024 when SLOPD had to respond multiple times and the fraternity members refused to shut down the
party. It went on for several hours and we could hear it from our house on Fredericks Street. After a few hours,
Steve and I walked to Kentucky and Hathway and spoke with an officer who said they'd already responded three
times and had called their sergeant to the scene because the fraternity refused to stop the party.
Just FYI, the number of people listed on the dispatch log is self-reported by the person getting the citation. Same
with whether there is alcohol or not. The officers do not count the number of people at parties. I've seen parties
with well over 100 people and it was listed as 50 on the PD log, so the number listed is not necessarily accurate.
I wanted to clarify that as you work on the application of the CUP for the fraternity at 1327 E. Foothill Blvd. That
property has been a nightmare.
You said that you didn't have any noise citations for the CUP at 1292 Foothill and 123, 135, 137 & 175 Crandall
Way, which is Sigma Nu. There was a citation issued to 1292 Foothill Blvd this past weekend. Usually, the name
of the fraternity is listed next to the address on the address line in the PD dispatch log. I'm not sure why it's not
listed for 1292 Foothill. I've also seen some of the addresses for that CUP at 123, 135, 137 & 175 Crandall Way
show up in the SLOPD dispatch log. Those addresses are not on SLOPD's premised list so hopefully it is
updated by SLOPD to include all the addresses covered under the CUPs for fraternity operations.
2
The six property addresses at 1264 & 1264 1/2 Foothill Blvd and 1241, 1243, 1249, and 1251 Monte Vista Pl for
Lambda Chi Alpha were also not included on the premised list for SLOPD after my last public records request.
Hopefully, that has been updated or will be soon.
You said that SLOPD indicated there were three citations at these properties since the CUP was approved. Does
that include the most recent citation on 2/8/2025?
The fraternity also held a live music event that day, in violation of its CUP:
Thank you, again, for your help sorting this out. I will send the list of noise calls at documented fraternity
addresses, including illegal fraternity houses over the past three weekends when I finish the report. I'm
including previous documentation that shows the houses are fraternity operations.
-Kathie
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 12:54 PM Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Kathie,
3
Thanks for reaching out with your concerns.
Please see my responses below.
1. Have the addresses for Lambda Chi Alpha (identified in its CUP) been given to SLOPD as a fraternity? The
address in SLOPD's system does not identify a fraternity at that address.
I checked with PD and they do have the address for Lambda Chi Alpha (1264 Foothill) identified as a
fraternity in their system.
2. How many noise citations has Lambda Chi Alpha had since its CUP was approved?
I checked with PD - since approval, three citations have been issued at 1264 Foothill.
3. Does Beta Theta Pi have a CUP at 1327 Foothill? Even though it is shown as a fraternity in SLOPD's
database, my records don't show a CUP for 1327 Foothill Blvd.
There is no issued CUP for a fraternity at 1327 Foothill. An initial application was received to
establish a fraternity in September of 2024. It underwent one review and was returned to the
applicant with comments in October. A second submission was received on February 5 and is
currently under review. I would also note that this location has received a few noise citations
from PD and subsequent notices & citations for land use violations from our department. This
information has been provided to planning to be included for consideration regarding their
recommendation to planning commission.
4. There is a CUP for 1290 & 1292 Foothill, 123, 135, 137 & 175 Crandall Way (#109-05). It was a
supplement to the CUP for 1292 Foothill (#174-97) and was included in the report I gave you on
11/8/2023, which I have attached to this email on pages 28-32 of 95 pages. There have been noise calls
for the addresses on Crandall Way but they do not show up in SLOPD's database as a fraternity. It
appears the terms of the CUP were never fulfilled, therefore perhaps that CUP is not valid but I'm not
sure. Would you please let me know the status of those addresses? Sigma Nu occupies 1292 Foothill
and a sorority occupies 1290 Foothill, and I believe Sigma Nu also occupies the properties on Crandall
Way. I'm just trying to get my records straight so would greatly appreciate some clarification about this.
4
The CUP (109-05) is valid and encompasses all addresses listed on the permit (1290 & 1292
Foothill, 123, 135, 137, 175 Crandall). I don’t think we have any noise citations confirmed to have
been related to a sponsored event that have resulted in CUP violations for these addresses.
Let me know if I can provide further clarification.
Regards,
John Mezzapesa
Interim Deputy Building Official
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: Monday, February 17, 2025 4:17 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>
Cc: Brett Cross < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Sandra Rowley <
Subject: Questions about fraternity operations
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hi Timmi and John,
I'm hoping you can answer some questions for me.
5
1. Have the addresses for Lambda Chi Alpha (identified in its CUP) been given to SLOPD as a fraternity? The
address in SLOPD's system does not identify a fraternity at that address. A current screenshot is below.
Usually, if there is a CUP, the fraternity is identified in SLOPD's database as a fraternity, as shown below for
Beta Theta Pi.
2. How many noise citations has Lambda Chi Alpha had since its CUP was approved?
3. Does Beta Theta Pi have a CUP at 1327 Foothill? Even though it is shown as a fraternity in SLOPD's database,
my records don't show a CUP for 1327 Foothill Blvd.
4. There is a CUP for 1290 & 1292 Foothill, 123, 135, 137 & 175 Crandall Way (#109-05). It was a supplement to
the CUP for 1292 Foothill (#174-97) and was included in the report I gave you on 11/8/2023, which I have
attached to this email on pages 28-32 of 95 pages. There have been noise calls for the addresses on Crandall
Way but they do not show up in SLOPD's database as a fraternity. It appears the terms of the CUP were never
fulfilled, therefore perhaps that CUP is not valid but I'm not sure. Would you please let me know the status of
those addresses? Sigma Nu occupies 1292 Foothill and a sorority occupies 1290 Foothill, and I believe Sigma
Nu also occupies the properties on Crandall Way. I'm just trying to get my records straight so would greatly
appreciate some clarification about this.
I have other questions about the ongoing fraternity operations at documented fraternity houses in R-1 and R-2
neighborhoods that have not been flagged in SLOPD's database so Cal Poly and Cuesta students who work as
SNAP officers are sent to those locations instead of sworn officers. SNAP officers can only issue Disturbance
Advisement Card (DAC) warnings, not citations. Also, fraternities are not eligible for DACs when a noise call is
made so fraternities are holding large events at those illegal fraternity; houses to get around the consequences
6
of an automatic response from SLOPD. It would be great if the database was updated in SLOPD's system so we
can get a handle on the illegal fraternity house operations in our neighborhood.
My main goal is consistency between code enforcement/community development and SLOPD's database.
Thank you for your help.
Kathie Walker
Fraternity Report to SLO CDD Tway and Mezzapesa October 2023 (2).pdf
1
From:Wallace, Christine
Sent:Tuesday, March 4, 2025 11:23 AM
To:kathie walker
Cc:Mickel, Fred
Subject:RE: Citation written on 2/28/2025
Hi Kathie,
It was issued at 1820. The Records supervisor does an audit at the end of the month to make corrections to each
entry that requires a fix. Code enforcement is aware of the citation.
Best,
Christine
From: kathie walker < >
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 11:19 AM
To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Citation written on 2/28/2025
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Correction: the citation was on 2/28/2025.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 11:17 AM kathie walker < > wrote:
SLOPD,
A noise citation was issued to Jack Murphy in the "1800 Block of Hope Street" on 3/28/2025 at 2:13 a.m. I
believe the citation should be for 1820 Hope Street because that's where Jack Murphy lives and is the Main
Chapter House for Theta Chi fraternity at Cal Poly in an R-1 residential neighborhood. Jack Murphy is the
president of Theta Chi and attends Cal Poly despite the citation indicating he does not attend Cuesta or Cal
Poly. (I'm noticing this trend lately, with fraternity members who live in illegal fraternity house locations
refusing to tell the officer where they attend school or claiming they don't attend Cal Poly.)
Jack Murphy also received a citation three months ago at 1820 Hope Street:
2
Please make the correction to the record to reflect the address where the citation was issued. I am keeping
records and submitting reports to the City and code enforcement, so appreciate having correct information,
even if it is not an illegal fraternity house location.
Thank you,
Kathie Walker
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Wednesday, March 5, 2025 10:11 AM
To:Stewart, Erica A
Cc:Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross
Subject:Comments on YikYak re: music festival at Cal Poly
Attachments:yikyak concert.pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hi Erica,
I'm reading some comments on YikYak about "the city" rejecting the musical artists for the Morning on the Green
event on March 15th. The posts began last night when someone claiming to be on the planning committee
disclosed the artists were EDM DJs Galantis and Zhu, and they had Ski Mask (the Slump God) booked but "the
city" didn't want a rap artist.
There is more discussion this morning about the city's role in stopping a rap artist from being booked. Most of
the artists announced originally were popular rap artists.
I'm afraid this rumor will gain traction and create anger amongst the students, which could be taken out on our
neighborhood. It might be helpful for the city leadership to clarify that the city did not have any input on the
artists and they were chosen by Cal Poly alone. I'm not sure if the artists leaked are correct or if there will be a
rap artist, but if the rumor is true, it seems there may be some problems.
I've attached some of the comments from last night. A couple from this morning are below. Thank you for your
help.
-Kathie
2
1
From:Stewart, Erica A
Sent:Thursday, March 6, 2025 8:13 AM
To:kathie walker
Cc:Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; McDonald, Whitney; Scott, Rick; Brett Cross
Subject:Re: Comments on YikYak re: music festival at Cal Poly
Hi Kathie,
Thank you for letting me know. I can assure you that the city was not involved in deciding the musicians for Cal Poly’s
music festival. I shared this with the ASI board of directors when I spoke to them last night. I will do my best to dispel
this rumor at any other opportunity.
Take care,
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: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 10:11 AM
To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>
Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross <
Subject: Comments on YikYak re: music festival at Cal Poly
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hi Erica,
I'm reading some comments on YikYak about "the city" rejecting the musical artists for the Morning on the Green
event on March 15th. The posts began last night when someone claiming to be on the planning committee
disclosed the artists were EDM DJs Galantis and Zhu, and they had Ski Mask (the Slump God) booked but "the
city" didn't want a rap artist.
2
There is more discussion this morning about the city's role in stopping a rap artist from being booked. Most of
the artists announced originally were popular rap artists.
I'm afraid this rumor will gain traction and create anger amongst the students, which could be taken out on our
neighborhood. It might be helpful for the city leadership to clarify that the city did not have any input on the
artists and they were chosen by Cal Poly alone. I'm not sure if the artists leaked are correct or if there will be a
rap artist, but if the rumor is true, it seems there may be some problems.
I've attached some of the comments from last night. A couple from this morning are below. Thank you for your
help.
-Kathie
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Saturday, March 15, 2025 3:55 AM
To:Scott, Rick
Subject:Re: YikYak posts: Party moved to Stafford and Kentucky
Attachments:kentucky and stafford.jpg; kentucky and stafford yy.jpg; stafford and kentucky is where im
headed.jpg; stafford and kentucky yy.jpg; heard stafford and kentucky yy.jpg
FYI: there are several more posts confirming Stafford and Kentucky.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 3:33 AM Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> wrote:
Thank you Kathie. The information has been passed along.
Rick
From: kathie walker < >
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 8:41 PM
To: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Dickel, Jason <jdickel@slocity.org>
Subject: YikYak posts: Party moved to Stafford and Kentucky
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
You're probably following YikYak but in case you're not, there are a couple of posts about moving the party to
Kentucky and Stafford (attached). Theta Chi has a fraternity house at the corner of Kentucky and Stafford (496
Kentucky and 1350 Stafford)
Another post also says they're moving it to Sigma Pi fraternity house on Slack, but that's probably a targeted
post against Sigma Pi. Just in case, the address for Sigma Pi's fraternity on Slack is 1525 Slack.
The main chapter houses for fraternities in neighborhoods are:
Alpha Sigma Phi 1218/1220 Bond Street
Delta Sigma Phi 1684/1688 Mill Street
Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway Avenue
Phi Delta Theta 260 Chaplin Lane
2
Phi Gamma Delta 1229 Fredericks Street
Phi Sigma Kappa 348/350 Hathway Avenue
Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays Street
Sigma Pi 1525 Slack Street
Theta Chi 1820 Hope Street
Pi Kappa Phi 66 Rafael Way
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Friday, March 14, 2025 8:41 PM
To:Scott, Rick; Mickel, Fred; Dickel, Jason
Subject:YikYak posts: Party moved to Stafford and Kentucky
Attachments:YikYak st frattys location.jpg; YikYak st frattys at sigma pi on slack.jpg
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
You're probably following YikYak but in case you're not, there are a couple of posts about moving the party to
Kentucky and Stafford (attached). Theta Chi has a fraternity house at the corner of Kentucky and Stafford (496
Kentucky and 1350 Stafford)
Another post also says they're moving it to Sigma Pi fraternity house on Slack, but that's probably a targeted
post against Sigma Pi. Just in case, the address for Sigma Pi's fraternity on Slack is 1525 Slack.
The main chapter houses for fraternities in neighborhoods are:
Alpha Sigma Phi 1218/1220 Bond Street
Delta Sigma Phi 1684/1688 Mill Street
Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway Avenue
Phi Delta Theta 260 Chaplin Lane
Phi Gamma Delta 1229 Fredericks Street
Phi Sigma Kappa 348/350 Hathway Avenue
Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays Street
Sigma Pi 1525 Slack Street
Theta Chi 1820 Hope Street
Pi Kappa Phi 66 Rafael Way
1
From:Scott, Rick
Sent:Saturday, March 15, 2025 3:33 AM
To:kathie walker
Subject:RE: YikYak posts: Party moved to Stafford and Kentucky
Thank you Kathie. The information has been passed along.
Rick
From: kathie walker < >
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 8:41 PM
To: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Dickel, Jason <jdickel@slocity.org>
Subject: YikYak posts: Party moved to Stafford and Kentucky
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
You're probably following YikYak but in case you're not, there are a couple of posts about moving the party to
Kentucky and Stafford (attached). Theta Chi has a fraternity house at the corner of Kentucky and Stafford (496
Kentucky and 1350 Stafford)
Another post also says they're moving it to Sigma Pi fraternity house on Slack, but that's probably a targeted
post against Sigma Pi. Just in case, the address for Sigma Pi's fraternity on Slack is 1525 Slack.
The main chapter houses for fraternities in neighborhoods are:
Alpha Sigma Phi 1218/1220 Bond Street
Delta Sigma Phi 1684/1688 Mill Street
Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway Avenue
Phi Delta Theta 260 Chaplin Lane
Phi Gamma Delta 1229 Fredericks Street
Phi Sigma Kappa 348/350 Hathway Avenue
Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays Street
Sigma Pi 1525 Slack Street
Theta Chi 1820 Hope Street
Pi Kappa Phi 66 Rafael Way
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Saturday, March 15, 2025 4:54 PM
To:Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola; Matthew Steven Armas
Cc:Brett Cross; Sandra Rowley; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Stewart, Erica A
Subject:St. Fratty's Party at Delta Chi at 5 a.m. on 3/15/2025
Attachments:delta chi party 3.15.2025 st fratttys day.mp4
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hi Elizabeth,
During the SCLC meeting on Thursday, 3/13/2025, you said that fraternities were not permitted to have parties
before tonight (3/15) and if they did, there would be consequences. As it turns out, Delta Chi had a party early
this morning. There were postings about it on YikYak yesterday and multiple TikTok videos today document the
party. I have attached one of those videos.
As you can see, the party is held at the Delta Chi fraternity house on Monte Vista Place and there is a sign
hanging in the courtyard that has their Greek letters and "Get Lucky" "St. Fratty's 25".
2
Delta Chi is currently on probation through Spring 2025, which makes the party even more consequential.
I am also anticipating parties thrown by multiple fraternities tonight based on social media posts and hope they
will not be held illegally in residential neighborhoods. The fraternity situation has become overwhelming for
our neighborhood and is spreading. I hope you will partner with the City of SLO and our neighborhoods to solve
the problem.
I appreciate your information at SCLC and hope you will follow through with the appropriate measures.
Kathie Walker
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Saturday, March 15, 2025 9:26 PM
To:Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola; Matthew Steven Armas
Cc:Brett Cross; Sandra Rowley; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Stewart, Erica A
Subject:Re: St. Fratty's Party at Delta Chi at 5 a.m. on 3/15/2025
Attachments:Delta Chi St. Fratty Party 3.15.2025.mp4
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
I meant to attach a different video so am doing that now. There are several videos on social media that
document the party at Delta Chi in the early morning on 3/15/2025
On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 4:53 PM kathie walker < > wrote:
Hi Elizabeth,
During the SCLC meeting on Thursday, 3/13/2025, you said that fraternities were not permitted to have parties
before tonight (3/15) and if they did, there would be consequences. As it turns out, Delta Chi had a party early
this morning. There were postings about it on YikYak yesterday and multiple TikTok videos today document the
party. I have attached one of those videos.
As you can see, the party is held at the Delta Chi fraternity house on Monte Vista Place and there is a sign
hanging in the courtyard that has their Greek letters and "Get Lucky" "St. Fratty's 25".
2
Delta Chi is currently on probation through Spring 2025, which makes the party even more consequential.
I am also anticipating parties thrown by multiple fraternities tonight based on social media posts and hope they
will not be held illegally in residential neighborhoods. The fraternity situation has become overwhelming for
our neighborhood and is spreading. I hope you will partner with the City of SLO and our neighborhoods to solve
the problem.
I appreciate your information at SCLC and hope you will follow through with the appropriate measures.
Kathie Walker
1
From:Stewart, Erica A
Sent:Monday, April 21, 2025 10:36 AM
To:kathie walker; Brett Cross; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Francis, Emily; Scott, Rick; Wallace, Christine;
McDonald, Whitney
Cc:Jason Mockford; Matthew Steven Armas; Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola; dgroom@calpoly.edu;
Courtney Leigh Kienow; Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Subject:Re: SCLC Meeting on 4/17/2025, St. Fratty's Day party at Delta Chi fraternity
Thank you, Kathie.
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
estewart@slocity.org
805.540.1154
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
The best way to report general issues within City limits or to request City services during this time is via Ask SLO,
www.slocity.org/Ask.
From: kathie walker < >
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 8:29:35 PM
To: Brett Cross < ; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < ; Stewart, Erica A
<estewart@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine
<cwallace@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>
Cc: Jason Mockford <jmockfor@calpoly.edu>; Matthew Steven Armas <msarmas@calpoly.edu>; Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
<eaielloc@calpoly.edu>; dgroom@calpoly.edu <dgroom@calpoly.edu>; Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>; Tway,
Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>
Subject: SCLC Meeting on 4/17/2025, St. Fratty's Day party at Delta Chi fraternity
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear SCLC Members,
During today's SCLC meeting, Jason Mockford addressed an early-morning party at Delta Chi fraternity on
Saturday, March 15, 2025, aka "St. Fratty's Day". The fraternity occupies an entire apartment complex located at
1236 Monte Vista Place, with a centralized courtyard in the middle of the complex. The fraternity has a
conditional use permit for fraternity operations with an occupancy limitation of no more than 53 people on site
at any time, including fraternity members.
2
Delta Chi planned to hold a St. Fratty's Day party very early in the morning on March 15, 2025, at 1236 Monte
Vista Place and invited females from sororities and their friends to their early morning party. The fraternity also
painted a banner that hung in the courtyard that said, "Get Lucky," "St. Frattys '25" with Delta Chi's Greek letters
in a four-leaf clover. The banner helps illustrate that the party was pre-planned. There were also posts on YikYak
before March 15 about Delta Chi's fraternity party that morning.
Jason Mockford said that Delta Chi was investigated for having an unsanctioned party on March 15, 2025, and
was found not to be responsible for hosting the party. However, videos posted online show the party in the early
morning on March 15, 2025, when there were only a handful of guests but it was still noisy, then another video
with some guests with their BORGs, and another video when approximately 100 fraternity members and their
guests were partying in the courtyard where music was played, and some drinking and dancing while others
stood on the stairways and balconies around the courtyard, watching the party. It was, indeed, "a party" and
was not registered with Cal Poly because Greek Life prohibited fraternities from having parties that morning.
This was before people reportedly showed up who were not invited to the party.
Word got out on social media that there was a party at Delta Chi, and more people started showing up and
entered the courtyard area. During the SCLC meeting today, Jason Mockford described the uninvited guests
"breaking down fences and storming into the courtyard." For this reason, Cal Poly's investigation of the fraternity
party resulted in a finding that Delta Chi was "not responsible" for hosting a party on March 15, 2025, and
therefore did not violate Greek Life's rules that no parties were allowed to be hosted by fraternities.
To be clear, Delta Chi planned and hosted a St. Fratty's Day party at 1236 Monte Vista Place in the early morning
hours of March 15, 2025. The planned party in the courtyard was full of about 100 people, including fraternity
members, their guests, and guests' friends who were invited to the party by the fraternity members. There was
loud music, dancing, and partying BEFORE the uninvited guests showed up and created chaos by "storming the
courtyard". This is documented by multiple videos posted on social media and social media posts beforehand,
citing the fraternity party at Delta Chi. I've attached a video with some segments slowed down because the
videos are short. Screenshots of one video below show a party with people standing around and mingling with
others in the courtyard, on the stairs, and on the balconies. No one is "storming the courtyard" in the video, and
fraternity members are calmly standing around with their guests. (For context, I've also attached the full video
that the first short clip was edited from, which was a video posted by a gal who traveled to SLO from Hawaii to
attend the event with her friend. They attended the Delta Chi party very, very early, before the alternate
event on campus started.)
3
The fraternity received a citation from SLOPD for the party at around 4:20 a.m. Jason Mockford claims the
fraternity members called SLOPD to get help with the invasion of uninvited people taking over the party.
Nonetheless, there was a party at the fraternity before those people showed up.
The proximate cause of the people rushing into the party, as described by Jason Mockford, was that the
fraternity hosted a party, and word spread about the party, which caused more people than were invited to go to
the location to find the party. If the fraternity had not hosted a party, no one would have shown up and gone to
their party in the courtyard. Delta Chi bears responsibility for planning and hosting the party in the first place.
In contrast, Sigma Nu also planned to have an early morning St. Fratty's Day party and had a "St. Fratty's Day"
banner painted to hang during the party, but the fraternity cancelled their plans a few days beforehand. They
have received multiple noise citations, and their Conditional Use Permit is being re-reviewed by the Planning
Commission in May 2025, based on a recommendation from Community Development. This may have
contributed to their decision to cancel their party, but for whatever reason, Sigma Nu made the right choice.
Delta Chi did not.
Although Delta Chi was not held responsible by Cal Poly for the early morning St. Fratty's Day party, the
fraternity received a noise citation from SLOPD. The bodycam video from officers who responded to the party
confirms the "Get Lucky" "St. Fratty's '25" banner in the courtyard and other documentation that show a pre-
planned party was happening, and the citation was legitimate.
Hopefully, this documentation of the party at Delta Chi helps to clear up some of the confusion about what
happened that morning. I hope we will continue to work together to hold fraternities responsible for how their
actions affect their neighbors, and find a long-term solution for Greek Life, such as a Greek Village on Cal Poly's
campus.
Sincerely,
Kathie Walker
4
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of
this picture from the Internet. st frattys 2025 from oahu.mp4
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of
this picture from the Internet.
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Sunday, April 6, 2025 5:14 PM
To:McDonald, Whitney
Cc:Wallace, Christine; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Stewjenkins Info; Mila Vujovich-
LaBarre; Steven Walker; Mezzapesa, John; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Scott, Rick; Collins, Scott
Subject:Illegal Fraternity Operations: SNAP, Planning Commission, etc.
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Good evening Whitney,
Our neighborhood continues to suffer from noisy fraternity parties at illegal fraternity houses.
I've included some history below and information related to a large, noisy fraternity party at
The
residents of our neighborhood need meaningful progress toward solving the ongoing problem
of illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood by taking steps to hold the fraternities
responsible for their illegal actions.
History
In the fall of 2021, I began documenting the noisy parties at illegal fraternity houses in our
neighborhood and sending videos to the City, including SLOPD, because most of the time, the
parties were cleared as negative violations or unable to locate, and not cited. I also
corresponded with other neighbors in our Alta Vista neighborhood who had also noticed an
uptick in noise and fraternities moving in near their homes. Long-term residents moved away
to get relief from the unbearable living conditions.
On June 2, 2022, The New Times covered the problem, featuring one neighbor who moved
away shortly after the article was published. The problem was relatively new and has since
been linked to the exponential growth of illegal and unregulated fraternity houses in our
neighborhoods.
In the fall of 2022, Sigma Pi moved in next door to us, and Theta Chi moved in across the
street from us. Other fraternities were also operating near our home. It was absolute hell. This
is when I began being targeted by fraternity members, which continues to this date, including
yesterday afternoon when Steve and I returned from an errand, and someone yelled
something at me while I was getting out of our car.
In the spring of 2023, I communicated with Community Development and realized that
fraternities are not legally allowed to operate in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. I spoke with
Derek Johnson about the problem, and he encouraged me to document everything and work
with Community Development. It took several months for me to compile all the information in
a report, which was based on the fraternity's social media pages that advertised their events,
and information obtained from public records requests. The report was ready in September
2023, at the beginning of the 2023-2024 academic year.
3
4
Coordination Between Code Enforcement and SLOPD
During a Planning Commission hearing over a year ago, the Commissioners told Community
Development staff that Community Development and SLOPD needed to get on the same page
as soon as possible and share a database so that SLOPD knows the locations of every
fraternity house, including those operating illegally. Using that database, SLOPD can enforce
standards consistent with the City's rules for fraternities, such as not being allowed to register
parties through SLOPD's Party Registration not being allowed to wipe their citation history
clean clean through SLOPD's Early Removal Program, and not being eligible for a Disturbance
Advisement Card (DAC). This was meant to be the first step in holding the illegal fraternity
operations responsible for their negative impact on our neighborhoods. The next step was for
the City to cite and stop their operations completely. It does not appear that step one has
even happened yet.
The vast majority of Cal Poly's fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo do not have conditional
use permits. Many of these illegal fraternities have openly operated as fraternity houses for
years, and the City, including SLOPD, has known they are fraternity houses. Some SLOPD
employees refer to these fraternity operations as "satellite houses," even though many are the
Main Chapter House for Cal Poly's many fraternities. They are not "satellite" houses. Most are
located illegally in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods.
5
Thirteen of Cal Poly's fraternities' Main Chapter Houses are in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods in
San Luis Obispo. Most of Cal Poly's 19 fraternities also have multiple satellite fraternity
houses, according to the City's definition of "a fraternity" because they are occupied by
fraternity members and hold fraternity-related events.
Over a year ago, SLOPD was provided with a list of Cal Poly's fraternities based on Cal Poly's
AB 524 Report. The list was used to flag those properties and not allow them to register
parties. However, it appears those addresses - known, documented fraternity houses - are still
being allowed to wipe their noise citation history clean through SLOPD's Early Removal
Program. The documented illegal fraternity operations should not be allowed to wipe their
citation history clean.
Also, SNAP officers are continuing to be sent to those known, documented fraternity houses to
respond to fraternity parties and issue DACs. SNAP does not respond to permitted fraternities
because fraternities are not eligible for a DAC; therefore, if a noise violation occurs, they
receive a citation. SNAP should not be dispatched to fraternity houses. I want to emphasize
that multiple SNAP officers have said they don't want to respond to fraternity parties, and
this information has been passed along to SLOPD leadership, yet SNAP is still responding to
noise complaints at documented fraternity houses.
We're now in "dayge" season, where fraternities will host huge raging daytime parties in their
backyards with DJs, inflatable waterslides, and hundreds of people. I'm hopeful that the City
will do something to stop the continued disruption from these crazy parties in our
neighborhoods!
Please let me know:
Has Code Enforcement communicated the addresses of illegal fraternity houses to
SLOPD?
Are the addresses of illegal fraternity houses flagged in SLOPD's system so they aren't
allowed to register parties through SLOPD Party Registration Program and clear their
noise citation history through SLOPD Early Removal Program, and are not eligible for a
DAC, consistent with the City's rules for fraternities? If not, why not? Is there a timeline
for this to occur?
Will SNAP officers continue to respond to known fraternity houses? Is there a plan for
CSOs to take a greater role in this regard?
What progress has the city made to eliminate illegal fraternity operations in the City's
neighborhoods?
I appreciate your assistance in getting this problem solved. It might be helpful for us to meet
in person to discuss the situation and next steps because we truly need to make some
progress to eliminate this problem.
Sincerely,
Kathie
1
From:Mezzapesa, John
Sent:Thursday, April 10, 2025 1:14 PM
To:kathie walker; McDonald, Whitney
Cc:Wallace, Christine; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Stewjenkins Info; Mila Vujovich-
LaBarre; Steven Walker; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Scott, Rick; Collins, Scott; Salem, Rami
Subject:RE: Illegal Fraternity Operations: 281 Hathway, SNAP, Planning Commission, etc.
Hi Kathie,
Thank you for your detailed email. I'm very sorry to hear about the continued disturbances and the frustration this has
understandably caused.
To address your questions directly:
Code Enforcement & SLOPD Communication:
There have been previous discussions regarding the locations Code Enforcement has identified as operating as
unpermitted fraternities, however this is a running list that only includes those that have operated within the last
12 months. Just to be sure, I have sent an updated list to PD today to verify they have the most accurate
information. SLOPD has also set up automatic updates for issued DACs & citations as discussed in response to
question #4.
Flagging of Addresses in SLOPD System:
This will have to be verified by Police Department staff. I have contacted Chritine Wallace in SLOPD regarding
which addresses are currently flagged. It appears that she is out of the office until next week so I am sure she
will respond when she returns.
SNAP Officer Deployment:
This also requires a response from SLOPD. I will let their staff provide a response.
Progress Toward Eliminating Illegal Fraternity Operations:
Code enforcement continues to respond to any reported issues regarding unpermitted fraternities/sororities. We
have also set up automatic weekly updates from PD providing a list of issued DACs and citations for the previous
week. Any citations for violation of the noise ordinance issued to known permitted or unpermitted locations are
investigated to attempt to determine if the noise violation was in connection to a sponsored fraternity/sorority
event. If the evidence supports that a sponsored event was held, we move forward with a Notice of Violation
(NOV) citing land use violations or, if an NOV was issued within the last 12 months, an administrative citation.
We also completed a focused effort to inspect all reported locations during RUSH weekend in Januar y by having
staff patrol outside of their normal working hours to document any potential violations.
I have also developed an internal database that organizes the enforcement efforts of the Code Enforcement
team and the noise citations issued by PD which has allowed us to reference past enforcement activities by both
PD and CDD by location or organization and determine how to best move forward with additional enforcement.
I recently completed this database and will be training pertinent staff on how to utilize it the near future. As a
quick summary, in the last six months Code enforcement staff has followed up on 62 investigation requests
regarding unpermitted fraternity locations, issued 20 NOVs as a result of confirmed land use violations or use
permit violations, issued 6 administrative citations for repeat violations within the last twelve months and
recommended three use permits for review before the planning commission for violations of their use permit
conditions.
In addition to the above enforcement efforts, we have participated in over 6 meetings with CalPoly staff and
fraternity leadership as well as provided a presentation to Greek life leadership during their Greek Life Institute.
I have also begun conversation with the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities and am in the early phases
2
of creating a process to forward any verified violations to their office to investigate potential code of conduct
violations.
I appreciate your continued patience and attention to resolving this issue. Our team is dedicated to responding to the
best of our ability with the resources available and are available if you have any more concerns. Please let me know if
you’d like to set up a meeting to discuss further.
Best regards,
John Mezzapesa
Interim Deputy Building Official
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: Sunday, April 6, 2025 5:14 PM
To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>
Cc: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith
< ; Brett Cross < ; Stewjenkins Info < ; Mila Vujovich-
LaBarre < ; Steven Walker < >; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Tway,
Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>
Subject: Illegal Fraternity Operations: 281 Hathway, SNAP, Planning Commission, etc.
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Good evening Whitney,
Our neighborhood continues to suffer from noisy fraternity parties at illegal fraternity houses.
I've included some history below and information related to a large, noisy fraternity party at
The
residents of our neighborhood need meaningful progress toward solving the ongoing problem
of illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood by taking steps to hold the fraternities
responsible for their illegal actions.
History
4
6
Coordination Between Code Enforcement and SLOPD
During a Planning Commission hearing over a year ago, the Commissioners told Community
Development staff that Community Development and SLOPD needed to get on the same page
as soon as possible and share a database so that SLOPD knows the locations of every
fraternity house, including those operating illegally. Using that database, SLOPD can enforce
standards consistent with the City's rules for fraternities, such as not being allowed to register
parties through SLOPD's Party Registration not being allowed to wipe their citation history
clean clean through SLOPD's Early Removal Program, and not being eligible for a Disturbance
Advisement Card (DAC). This was meant to be the first step in holding the illegal fraternity
operations responsible for their negative impact on our neighborhoods. The next step was for
the City to cite and stop their operations completely. It does not appear that step one has
even happened yet.
The vast majority of Cal Poly's fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo do not have conditional
use permits. Many of these illegal fraternities have openly operated as fraternity houses for
years, and the City, including SLOPD, has known they are fraternity houses. Some SLOPD
employees refer to these fraternity operations as "satellite houses," even though many are the
Main Chapter House for Cal Poly's many fraternities. They are not "satellite" houses. Most are
located illegally in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods.
Thirteen of Cal Poly's fraternities' Main Chapter Houses are in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods in
San Luis Obispo. Most of Cal Poly's 19 fraternities also have multiple satellite fraternity
houses, according to the City's definition of "a fraternity" because they are occupied by
fraternity members and hold fraternity-related events.
Over a year ago, SLOPD was provided with a list of Cal Poly's fraternities based on Cal Poly's
AB 524 Report. The list was used to flag those properties and not allow them to register
parties. However, it appears those addresses - known, documented fraternity houses - are still
being allowed to wipe their noise citation history clean through SLOPD's Early Removal
Program. The documented illegal fraternity operations should not be allowed to wipe their
citation history clean.
Also, SNAP officers are continuing to be sent to those known, documented fraternity houses to
respond to fraternity parties and issue DACs. SNAP does not respond to permitted fraternities
because fraternities are not eligible for a DAC; therefore, if a noise violation occurs, they
receive a citation. SNAP should not be dispatched to fraternity houses. I want to emphasize
that multiple SNAP officers have said they don't want to respond to fraternity parties, and
this information has been passed along to SLOPD leadership, yet SNAP is still responding to
noise complaints at documented fraternity houses.
7
We're now in "dayge" season, where fraternities will host huge raging daytime parties in their
backyards with DJs, inflatable waterslides, and hundreds of people. I'm hopeful that the City
will do something to stop the continued disruption from these crazy parties in our
neighborhoods!
Please let me know:
Has Code Enforcement communicated the addresses of illegal fraternity houses to
SLOPD?
Are the addresses of illegal fraternity houses flagged in SLOPD's system so they aren't
allowed to register parties through SLOPD Party Registration Program and clear their
noise citation history through SLOPD Early Removal Program, and are not eligible for a
DAC, consistent with the City's rules for fraternities? If not, why not? Is there a timeline
for this to occur?
Will SNAP officers continue to respond to known fraternity houses? Is there a plan for
CSOs to take a greater role in this regard?
What progress has the city made to eliminate illegal fraternity operations in the City's
neighborhoods?
I appreciate your assistance in getting this problem solved. It might be helpful for us to meet
in person to discuss the situation and next steps because we truly need to make some
progress to eliminate this problem.
Sincerely,
Kathie
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Monday, April 14, 2025 5:15 PM
To:Stewart, Erica A; Marx, Jan; Francis, Emily; Boswell, Mike; Shoresman, Michelle; E-mail Council
Website
Subject:4/15/2025 Item 7.a. : City Livability - Greek Life & Illegal Fraternity Operations
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Councilmembers,
Please provide funding to solve the "fraternity problem" that has plagued our neighborhoods for several years.
There are over 50 illegal fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo, where fraternity members have rented houses in
residential neighborhoods (zoned R-1 & R-2) and are holding fraternity-related events, including rush events and
large, noisy parties that are disrupting the peace of others who live nearby. Of the 19 current fraternities at Cal
Poly, only six have Conditional Use Permits. Most fraternities have their MAIN CHAPTER HOUSES in R-1
and R-2 residential neighborhoods , primarily in the Alta Vista neighborhood. Additionally, most of the 19
fraternities have multiple satellite fraternity houses that hold fraternity events, including large, noisy parties.
In 2023, the City was given documentation, including Cal Poly's AB 524 Reports, that showed the addresses of
every fraternity, yet the main chapter houses for every fraternity listed in the report continue to operate illegally.
None have stopped operating and are full-fledged fraternity houses in our residential neighborhoods.
Since 2023, ongoing documentation and evidence have continued to be supplied to the City, yet none of the
fraternity operations have been shut down. These illegal fraternity houses have made the neighborhoods
unlivable. It's beyond frustrating!
The current system is broken, and the City must fix the problem. Please provide funding to Community
Development and SLOPD for a program to solve this problem so those who live in the affected neighborhoods
can have the quiet enjoyment they are legally entitled to. The necessary tools to solve the problem include:
A dedicated Code Enforcement Officer to document every Cal Poly fraternity operation, ensure they have
CUPs, bring them into compliance, and handle complaints.
Community Service Officers (CSOs) to respond to noise complaints on weekends.
IT to create and coordinate a database between Community Development and SLOPD with documented
fraternity houses, terms of their CUPs, and violations, including noise and municipal code violations, so
there is essential communication and coordination between these departments.
There should be regular meetings between Code Enforcement, SLOPD, and representatives in the affected
neighborhoods or RQN to evaluate whether current tools are effective. Adjustments should be made until the
problem is brought under control. For example, documented illegal fraternity houses should not be allowed to
wipe their citation history clean through SLOPD's Early Removal Program to evade fines for citations. Meetings
between Code Enforcement and SLOPD should be scheduled to continue regularly, to ensure compliance.
Approxiamtely 20% of Cal Poly students are involved in Greek Life. Additionally, Cal Poly has approved the
expansion of more fraternities that do not have CUPs or legal locations for operation, such as Pi Kappa Alpha or
PIKE. The City needs to get control of the situation as soon as possible, and it can only be solved if funding is
2
provided to create a program to handle the problem. Thank you for taking this problem seriously and working
toward a solution.
Sincerely,
Kathie Walker
1
From:Francis, Emily
Sent:Monday, April 14, 2025 7:16 PM
To:kathie walker
Subject:Re: 4/15/2025 Item 7.a. : City Livability - Greek Life & Illegal Fraternity Operations
Kathie,
Thank you for writing in about the ongoing challenges with neighborhood livability due to the illegal fraternity
operations. I understand how frustrating and disruptive these issues have been for you and others in the
affected areas.
I share your hope that there will be support and funding in this year’s budget to expand code enforcement
operations. Addressing these problems will require a more robust and coordinated effort, and I’m optimistic
that with the right resources, we can make meaningful progress toward improving the quality of life in our
neighborhoods.
Take care,
Emily
Emily Francis
pronouns she/her/hers
Council Member
Office of the City Council
990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E EFrancis@slocity.org
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 5:14 PM, kathie walker < > wrote:
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Councilmembers,
Please provide funding to solve the "fraternity problem" that has plagued our neighborhoods for several years.
There are over 50 illegal fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo, where fraternity members have rented houses in
residential neighborhoods (zoned R-1 & R-2) and are holding fraternity-related events, including rush events
and large, noisy parties that are disrupting the peace of others who live nearby. Of the 19 current fraternities
at Cal Poly, only six have Conditional Use Permits. Most fraternities have their MAIN CHAPTER HOUSES
in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods, primarily in the Alta Vista neighborhood. Additionally, most of the
19 fraternities have multiple satellite fraternity houses that hold fraternity events, including large, noisy parties.
2
In 2023, the City was given documentation, including Cal Poly's AB 524 Reports, that showed the addresses of
every fraternity, yet the main chapter houses for every fraternity listed in the report continue to operate illegally.
None have stopped operating and are full-fledged fraternity houses in our residential neighborhoods.
Since 2023, ongoing documentation and evidence have continued to be supplied to the City, yet none of the
fraternity operations have been shut down. These illegal fraternity houses have made the neighborhoods
unlivable. It's beyond frustrating!
The current system is broken, and the City must fix the problem. Please provide funding to Community
Development and SLOPD for a program to solve this problem so those who live in the affected neighborhoods
can have the quiet enjoyment they are legally entitled to. The necessary tools to solve the problem include:
A dedicated Code Enforcement Officer to document every Cal Poly fraternity operation, ensure they have
CUPs, bring them into compliance, and handle complaints.
Community Service Officers (CSOs) to respond to noise complaints on weekends.
IT to create and coordinate a database between Community Development and SLOPD with documented
fraternity houses, terms of their CUPs, and violations, including noise and municipal code violations, so
there is essential communication and coordination between these departments.
There should be regular meetings between Code Enforcement, SLOPD, and representatives in the affected
neighborhoods or RQN to evaluate whether current tools are effective. Adjustments should be made until the
problem is brought under control. For example, documented illegal fraternity houses should not be allowed to
wipe their citation history clean through SLOPD's Early Removal Program to evade fines for citations. Meetings
between Code Enforcement and SLOPD should be scheduled to continue regularly, to ensure compliance.
Approxiamtely 20% of Cal Poly students are involved in Greek Life. Additionally, Cal Poly has approved the
expansion of more fraternities that do not have CUPs or legal locations for operation, such as Pi Kappa Alpha or
PIKE. The City needs to get control of the situation as soon as possible, and it can only be solved if funding is
provided to create a program to handle the problem. Thank you for taking this problem seriously and working
toward a solution.
Sincerely,
Kathie Walker
1
From:Shoresman, Michelle
Sent:Monday, April 14, 2025 8:13 PM
To:kathie walker
Subject:RE: 4/15/2025 Item 7.a. : City Livability - Greek Life & Illegal Fraternity Operations
Hi Kathie,
Thanks, as always, for the email. I know you are in contact with Timmi and I hope you know that I have taken your
concerns seriously, as well as those expressed by RQN (which, I believe are in alignment with yours, for the most
part). There are work plan items in the work plan that are meant to continue forward with the work that has already
begun, and you have noted below.
Just as an example, please see this screen shot of one of the items that, I believe, pertains to your concerns:
Thanks again for writing in, and helping so much, with this effort.
Michelle
From: kathie walker < >
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 5:15 PM
To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Boswell,
Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website
<emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: 4/15/2025 Item 7.a. : City Livability - Greek Life & Illegal Fraternity Operations
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Councilmembers,
Please provide funding to solve the "fraternity problem" that has plagued our neighborhoods for several years.
There are over 50 illegal fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo, where fraternity members have rented houses in
residential neighborhoods (zoned R-1 & R-2) and are holding fraternity-related events, including rush events and
large, noisy parties that are disrupting the peace of others who live nearby. Of the 19 current fraternities at Cal
Poly, only six have Conditional Use Permits. Most fraternities have their MAIN CHAPTER HOUSES in R-1
and R-2 residential neighborhoods , primarily in the Alta Vista neighborhood. Additionally, most of the 19
fraternities have multiple satellite fraternity houses that hold fraternity events, including large, noisy parties.
In 2023, the City was given documentation, including Cal Poly's AB 524 Reports, that showed the addresses of
every fraternity, yet the main chapter houses for every fraternity listed in the report continue to operate illegally.
None have stopped operating and are full-fledged fraternity houses in our residential neighborhoods.
Since 2023, ongoing documentation and evidence have continued to be supplied to the City, yet none of the
fraternity operations have been shut down. These illegal fraternity houses have made the neighborhoods
unlivable. It's beyond frustrating!
2
The current system is broken, and the City must fix the problem. Please provide funding to Community
Development and SLOPD for a program to solve this problem so those who live in the affected neighborhoods
can have the quiet enjoyment they are legally entitled to. The necessary tools to solve the problem include:
A dedicated Code Enforcement Officer to document every Cal Poly fraternity operation, ensure they have
CUPs, bring them into compliance, and handle complaints.
Community Service Officers (CSOs) to respond to noise complaints on weekends.
IT to create and coordinate a database between Community Development and SLOPD with documented
fraternity houses, terms of their CUPs, and violations, including noise and municipal code violations, so
there is essential communication and coordination between these departments.
There should be regular meetings between Code Enforcement, SLOPD, and representatives in the affected
neighborhoods or RQN to evaluate whether current tools are effective. Adjustments should be made until the
problem is brought under control. For example, documented illegal fraternity houses should not be allowed to
wipe their citation history clean through SLOPD's Early Removal Program to evade fines for citations. Meetings
between Code Enforcement and SLOPD should be scheduled to continue regularly, to ensure compliance.
Approxiamtely 20% of Cal Poly students are involved in Greek Life. Additionally, Cal Poly has approved the
expansion of more fraternities that do not have CUPs or legal locations for operation, such as Pi Kappa Alpha or
PIKE. The City needs to get control of the situation as soon as possible, and it can only be solved if funding is
provided to create a program to handle the problem. Thank you for taking this problem seriously and working
toward a solution.
Sincerely,
Kathie Walker
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Thursday, April 17, 2025 8:30 PM
To:Brett Cross; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Stewart, Erica A; Francis, Emily; Scott, Rick; Wallace, Christine;
McDonald, Whitney
Cc:Jason Mockford; Matthew Steven Armas; Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola; dgroom@calpoly.edu;
Courtney Leigh Kienow; Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Subject:SCLC Meeting on 4/17/2025, St. Fratty's Day party at Delta Chi fraternity
Attachments:Delta Chi st frattys 2025 .mp4
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear SCLC Members,
During today's SCLC meeting, Jason Mockford addressed an early-morning party at Delta Chi fraternity on
Saturday, March 15, 2025, aka "St. Fratty's Day". The fraternity occupies an entire apartment complex located at
1236 Monte Vista Place, with a centralized courtyard in the middle of the complex. The fraternity has a
conditional use permit for fraternity operations with an occupancy limitation of no more than 53 people on site
at any time, including fraternity members.
Delta Chi planned to hold a St. Fratty's Day party very early in the morning on March 15, 2025, at 1236 Monte
Vista Place and invited females from sororities and their friends to their early morning party. The fraternity also
painted a banner that hung in the courtyard that said, "Get Lucky," "St. Frattys '25" with Delta Chi's Greek letters
in a four-leaf clover. The banner helps illustrate that the party was pre-planned. There were also posts on YikYak
before March 15 about Delta Chi's fraternity party that morning.
Jason Mockford said that Delta Chi was investigated for having an unsanctioned party on March 15, 2025, and
was found not to be responsible for hosting the party. However, videos posted online show the party in the early
morning on March 15, 2025, when there were only a handful of guests but it was still noisy, then another video
with some guests with their BORGs, and another video when approximately 100 fraternity members and their
guests were partying in the courtyard where music was played, and some drinking and dancing while others
stood on the stairways and balconies around the courtyard, watching the party. It was, indeed, "a party" and
was not registered with Cal Poly because Greek Life prohibited fraternities from having parties that morning.
This was before people reportedly showed up who were not invited to the party.
Word got out on social media that there was a party at Delta Chi, and more people started showing up and
entered the courtyard area. During the SCLC meeting today, Jason Mockford described the uninvited guests
"breaking down fences and storming into the courtyard." For this reason, Cal Poly's investigation of the fraternity
party resulted in a finding that Delta Chi was "not responsible" for hosting a party on March 15, 2025, and
therefore did not violate Greek Life's rules that no parties were allowed to be hosted by fraternities.
To be clear, Delta Chi planned and hosted a St. Fratty's Day party at 1236 Monte Vista Place in the early morning
hours of March 15, 2025. The planned party in the courtyard was full of about 100 people, including fraternity
members, their guests, and guests' friends who were invited to the party by the fraternity members. There was
loud music, dancing, and partying BEFORE the uninvited guests showed up and created chaos by "storming the
courtyard". This is documented by multiple videos posted on social media and social media posts beforehand,
citing the fraternity party at Delta Chi. I've attached a video with some segments slowed down because the
videos are short. Screenshots of one video below show a party with people standing around and mingling with
2
others in the courtyard, on the stairs, and on the balconies. No one is "storming the courtyard" in the video, and
fraternity members are calmly standing around with their guests. (For context, I've also attached the full video
that the first short clip was edited from, which was a video posted by a gal who traveled to SLO from Hawaii to
attend the event with her friend. They attended the Delta Chi party very, very early, before the alternate
event on campus started.)
The fraternity received a citation from SLOPD for the party at around 4:20 a.m. Jason Mockford claims the
fraternity members called SLOPD to get help with the invasion of uninvited people taking over the party.
Nonetheless, there was a party at the fraternity before those people showed up.
The proximate cause of the people rushing into the party, as described by Jason Mockford, was that the
fraternity hosted a party, and word spread about the party, which caused more people than were invited to go to
the location to find the party. If the fraternity had not hosted a party, no one would have shown up and gone to
their party in the courtyard. Delta Chi bears responsibility for planning and hosting the party in the first place.
In contrast, Sigma Nu also planned to have an early morning St. Fratty's Day party and had a "St. Fratty's Day"
banner painted to hang during the party, but the fraternity cancelled their plans a few days beforehand. They
have received multiple noise citations, and their Conditional Use Permit is being re-reviewed by the Planning
Commission in May 2025, based on a recommendation from Community Development. This may have
contributed to their decision to cancel their party, but for whatever reason, Sigma Nu made the right choice.
Delta Chi did not.
Although Delta Chi was not held responsible by Cal Poly for the early morning St. Fratty's Day party, the
fraternity received a noise citation from SLOPD. The bodycam video from officers who responded to the party
confirms the "Get Lucky" "St. Fratty's '25" banner in the courtyard and other documentation that show a pre-
planned party was happening, and the citation was legitimate.
Hopefully, this documentation of the party at Delta Chi helps to clear up some of the confusion about what
happened that morning. I hope we will continue to work together to hold fraternities responsible for how their
actions affect their neighbors, and find a long-term solution for Greek Life, such as a Greek Village on Cal Poly's
campus.
3
Sincerely,
Kathie Walker
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. st frattys 2025 from oahu.mp4
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:30 AM
To:E-mail Council Website; Stewart, Erica A; Francis, Emily; Marx, Jan; Shoresman, Michelle; Boswell,
Mike; Scott, Rick; Mickel, Fred
Cc:Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross
Subject:Calls to SLOPD with no response / not on dispatch log & 18 frat parties last weekend
Attachments:SLOPD Dispatch Log 4.18.2025.pdf
Dear SLOPD Leadership and Elected Representatives,
The sweet family below - mom, dad, and two kids - live in the Alta Vista neighborhood in San Luis Obispo. The
mom and dad graduated from Cal Poly, moved away for employment, and worked very, very hard to save
enough money to move back to SLO, where mom was born in the 80s. In addition to working full-time at
demanding jobs, mom also teaches at Cal Poly, and both parents have other responsibilities in addition to
raising their children. This family needs to be able to sleep at night to function during the day.
To avoid using generalities, I want to focus on a specific documented instance experienced by this family this
past weekend.
On the night of Friday, 4/18/2025, it was extremely loud in the Alta Vista neighborhood with people screaming
and music blaring from various parties. By 9:30 PM, there was a very loud party on Hathway Avenue, at the end
of Hathway Alley, across from Campus Bottle. The family in the photo couldn't sleep because of the screaming
and music from the party. At 9:59 PM, the dad called SLOPD and reported the noisy party. He described to the
dispatcher that the party was at the end of Hathway Alley, across from Cam pus Bottle. He told the dispatcher to
have officers go to Hathway Alley where it meets Hathway Avenue, and they would see the party because it can
be heard from a block away. A screenshot of his call to SLOPD at (805) 781-7312 is below, and was made from
phone number (707) 478- *. His name and phone number were given to the dispatcher. As you can see, the
call was made at 21:59 or 9:59 PM.
2
The party continued to get louder, and it was obvious that SLOPD had not responded. At 10:18 PM, the mom
called SLOPD to report the loud party. Again, she told the dispatcher that the party was at the end of Hathway
Alley, across from Campus Bottle. The dispatcher asked for a specific address, and the mom did not want to get
dressed and walk to the end of the block to find the exact address, but told the dispatcher that the officers
would hear the party if they went to Hathway Alley, where it meets Hathway Avenue, across from Campus
Bottle. The party was very loud, and anyone within a block or two would hear the party. If officers went to
Hathway Alley near Campus Bottle, they would easily find the party. A screenshot of her call to SLOPD at (805)
781-7312 is below, and was made from phone number (805) 441- *. Her name and phone number were given
to the dispatcher. As you can see, the call was made at 22:18 or 10:18 PM.
The noise continued for another hour. The mom and dad turned on a fan and turned on white noise to try to
drown out the noisy party so they and their children could sleep. (This information was not shared with me until
the following day, 4/19/2025, when the mom and dad were complaining that they were exhausted because of
the loud party at the end of Hathway Alley that kept them awake until late, and that they'd each called SLOPD,
but the party wasn't stopped.)
SLOPD did not respond to either of their calls noted above, and neither call is shown on the SLOPD
dispatch log. The dispatch log covering that period is attached to this email for reference.
I have written to the City Council before about calls I've made to SLOPD for noisy parties that were not
responded to, and did not appear on the dispatch log. Other neighbors have reported the same problem. This is
another example of these occurrences. Please let me know why these two calls are not reflected in the dispatch
log.
3
Meanwhile, I heard loud parties on Friday night, 4/18/2025, too, that were violations of the noise ordinance all
around our home beginning at 8 PM. The music and screaming continued for hours, and it was difficult to
discern where exactly it was coming from, so I walked to find one fraternity party at 348 Hathway, which I
reported to SLOPD at 8:25 PM and documented with video. This is the Main Chapter House for Phi Sigma Kappa.
It is a documented illegal fraternity house. It took so long for SLOPD to respond that I called twice, and my
husband also called about 45 minutes after my initial call. The dispatcher told my husband that the officers who
responded to the fraternity party at 348 Hathway asked the guys to "take the party inside". SLOPD did not cite
the party, even though it was a violation of the noise ordinance, and the property is known by SLOPD and the
City to be an illegal fraternity house. The party was cleared by the officer as a "Negative Violation".
I will write a separate email about that situation and the fraternities overall because it's such a huge issue. This
past weekend, SLOPD was dispatched to 18 separate fraternity parties at fraternity houses in our neighborhood.
Only three of those have a Conditional Use Permit, and each of the parties violated the terms of their CUPs.
Most parties had 50 to 150 people listed on the citations, a figure reported by the fraternity member because
police officers don't count the partygoers. The fraternity at 1229 Fredericks Street is the Main Chapter House for
Phi Gamma Delta and is a documented illegal fraternity house in an R-2 residential neighborhood, yet SNAP
officers were sent to the fraternity party. This is one of several issues to be addressed by City leadership related
to illegal fraternity operations in the city.
I have advocated for CSOs to patrol our neighborhood on weekends because they have proven to be effective
when responding to noise calls. CSOs are also less expensive for the City than sworn officers, and could likely
respond much more quickly in many cases. It feels like torture when the party continues for prolonged periods
(like 348 Hathway Ave and 434 Hathway Ave on Friday, 4/18). It is also frustrating when there is no response
after police are called, or loud parties are cleared as a "Negative Violation" or "No Report".
Skipping forward to 11:00 PM on Friday night, I could still hear booming bass and people screaming and singing
along with the music from Hathway Alley, behind our home. This was the same party reported by the dad in the
photo at 9:59 PM and the mom in the photo at 10:18 PM. Based on the constant stream of females walking in
front of our house to a fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks Street, I thought the noise was coming from the
backyard of that fraternity, which backs up to Hathway Alley. I called SLOPD at 11:12 PM to report the fraternity
party.
After I called SLOPD, I decided to walk out to Hathway Alley to make sure that's where the noise was coming
from and found there was actually another larger party on Hathway Avenue, at the very end of Hathway Alley. I
didn't know that other people had already called SLOPD to report that party. I called SLOPD a second time and
reported the party at the end of Hathway Alley, across from Campus Bottle. A screenshot from my phone shows
my two calls to SLOPD at 11:12 PM for the fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks Street, and the second party at the
end of Hathway Alley at 11:15 PM.
4
The reason the second call at 11:15 PM took two minutes is that the dispatcher asked for an address, and I had
to walk down to the end of the alley to get the address from a mailbox while the dispatcher stayed on the line.
Initially, I told her that the officers would find it if they drove to Hathway Alley because it was very loud and they
couldn't miss it. I could hear it from inside my house, a block away. People were in the alley, and I was
uncomfortable walking down to find the address. But the dispatcher seemed to want a specific address, so I
walked down to the party and gave her the address of 434 Hathway Avenue. As I walked back to my home and
reached an area where I could not be seen by others, I took a video to document the party.
The music stopped about 15 minutes later when SLOPD arrived, but the officers cleared the party as "No
Report" which is the same as a negative violation. The citation shows the officers arrived at 11:27 PM and
cleared the call 13 minutes later at 11:40 PM, so presumably they were making contact with the partygoers
during that time. Logically, if there wasn't a party, it would be cleared within a few minutes of their arrival
because there is nothing to clear. I personally witnessed an enormous, noisy party and know it took time for
officers to deal with it.
It is frustrating that the party was not cited because it was incredibly loud and disturbing for over two hours,
since 9:30 PM! It was a clear violation of the noise ordinance, yet it was given a pass by SLOPD.
Everyone who lives in our City, including our neighborhood, deserves peace. It is codified in California's Health
& Safety Code (section 46000 (f)) that "All Californians are entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment without the intrusion
of noise which may be hazardous to their health or welfare". And yet our neighborhood does not have a peaceful and
quiet environment because it is disturbed by intrusive, ongoing loud parties nearly every weekend that Cal Poly
is in session. It is harmful to the health and general welfare of the residents who are unable to sleep or have the
quiet enjoyment of their property because of the continual noisy parties, screaming people, constant rideshare
5
traffic with slamming car doors, etc., that unnecessarily and unfairly keep us awake in our lower-density
residential neighborhood. When SLOPD does not hold those violating the noise ordinance responsible by citing
them, it enables those people to continue their behavior because there aren't consequences.
Regarding the dispatch log, SLOPD uses the "data" of calls received for noisy parties to compile reports as a
measurement of success (or not) in combating party noise. The data is used in an annual report to the City
Council, monthly reports to SCLC, RQN, etc. When the dispatch log is missing calls made for noisy parties, the
data is not accurate.
Further, when multiple calls are made for the same party by different people, SLOPD's records only count it as
one call, even if 10 people called. This method of data does not cover the full spectrum and harm caused when
multiple people call to complain because they are disturbed and affected by a noisy party. For these reasons,
the data is not a reliable indicator of the real number of calls received by SLOPD for noisy parties. Ten separate
calls do not equal one call, and citing only one call as "data" does not accurately tell the story of what occurred
if ten people were affected and called SLOPD to complain. Many of these enormous parties affect many
people and are doing catastrophic damage to our neighborhood.
Finally, SLOPD uses the data as an indicator of whether a call for a noisy party was valid or not. The problem is
that the data is not an accurate indicator of the actual noise and disturbances suffered by the neighborhood.
For example, on Friday, the party at 434 Hathway was not cited, even though it was a clear violation of the noise
ordinance. The same is true for the party at 348 Hathway earlier in the evening. I have videos of each party. I
have already sent SLOPD and the City Council many videos of parties at illegal fraternity houses near our home
that were cleared by SLOPD as a "Negative Violation" or "No Report". It is, unfortunately, not uncommon.
I'm not sure about how to rectify the situation, but I feel the City should track the true number of calls made by
each individual who calls to complain about a noisy party. This is the only way to ensure the data used by
SLOPD is accurate, to encompass every NSPY call received by whoever is affected and takes the time to call
SLOPD.
I also feel that some officers need to be trained further regarding the elements of the City's noise ordinance.
Some officers, in particular, who shall not be named at this time, tend to look the other way with noisy parties,
and it is a disservice to our neighborhood.
It's also important that CSOs are available to respond to our neighborhood on weekends. They are efficient,
effective, and less expensive than sworn officers. Spring is the outdoor party season with fraternities during the
day and at night, and it is a NIGHTMARE for our neighborhood. I can't emphasize this enough! This past
weekend, there were out-of-control parties with waterslides, blaring music, and hundreds of screaming people
in our neighborhood during the day, and many large, very loud parties at night. It is outrageous and completely
unacceptable. Please increase enforcement of the noisy parties on weekends in our neighborhood from now
until the end of Cal Poly's academic year, by deploying a quicker response (CSOs?) and more strictly enforcing
the noise ordinance, as was done leading up to St. Patrick's Day.
We love Cal Poly and feel that most of the college students are amazing, but the ongoing noisy large (mostly
fraternity) parties every weekend are over the top, and our neighborhood needs quicker and tougher
enforcement through June. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Kathie Walker
6
P.S. Please let me know why the two calls referenced above were not included in the SLOPD dispatch log and
had no response from police.
Call to SLOPD at 21:59 (9:59 pm)
from (707) 478-47**
for loud party at end of Hathway Alley
Call at 9:59 pm (21:59) should be here
between calls at 21:56 & 22:04, but it
does not appear on the SLOPD
dispatch log
Call to SLOPD at 22:18 (10:18 pm)
from (805) 441-44**
for loud party at end of Hathway Alley
Call at 10:18 pm (22:18) should be here
between calls at 22:15 & 22:27 but it
does not appear on the SLOPD
dispatch log
1
From:Scott, Rick
Sent:Wednesday, April 23, 2025 7:26 PM
To:kathie walker; Mickel, Fred
Cc:Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; CityClerk
Subject:RE: Calls to SLOPD with no response / not on dispatch log & 18 frat parties last weekend
BCC CC: (City Council blind copied)
Ms. Walker,
Thank you for your comments as we will take this under advisement. I know we’ve had previous discussions on
several occasions where you’ve expressed frustration about the department not logging each call to 911 for calls that
are already dispatched or being queued. The department went into detail at that time to provide you greater
understanding of our process. That is not customary with how emergency services are dispatched and ties up our
limited 911 staff even further and not necessary to expeditiously address an emergency call for help. I believe I
provided a similar example such as when a car crash occurs, we get a dozen or so phone calls depending on the
severity and the number of passerbys. Dispatch builds a single call and updates if new or differing information is
received by any other callers.
Although it has been suggested before that “the police did not respond” we have not found that to be accurate in each
of our call reviews previously. I also clarified that dispatch does not need an exact location of a noise complaint and
that is not our policy. If the caller doesn’t know, simply state “I don’t know” or invite the officer to respond to the caller’s
address to listen to what you are hearing and task them with finding the location on their own.
Please feel free to put the couple below in touch with the department should they have additional information to
provide from their perspective.
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: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:30 AM
2
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily
<EFrancis@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike
<MBoswell@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>
Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross <
Subject: Calls to SLOPD with no response / not on dispatch log & 18 frat parties last weekend
Dear SLOPD Leadership and Elected Representatives,
The sweet family below - mom, dad, and two kids - live in the Alta Vista neighborhood in San Luis Obispo. The
mom and dad graduated from Cal Poly, moved away for employment, and worked very, very hard to save
enough money to move back to SLO, where mom was born in the 80s. In addition to working full-time at
demanding jobs, mom also teaches at Cal Poly, and both parents have other responsibilities in addition to
raising their children. This family needs to be able to sleep at night to function during the day.
To avoid using generalities, I want to focus on a specific documented instance experienced by this family this
past weekend.
On the night of Friday, 4/18/2025, it was extremely loud in the Alta Vista neighborhood with people screaming
and music blaring from various parties. By 9:30 PM, there was a very loud party on Hathway Avenue, at the end
of Hathway Alley, across from Campus Bottle. The family in the photo couldn't sleep because of the screaming
and music from the party. At 9:59 PM, the dad called SLOPD and reported the noisy party. He described to the
dispatcher that the party was at the end of Hathway Alley, across from Cam pus Bottle. He told the dispatcher to
have officers go to Hathway Alley where it meets Hathway Avenue, and they would see the party because it can
be heard from a block away. A screenshot of his call to SLOPD at (805) 781-7312 is below, and was made from
phone number (707) 478- *. His name and phone number were given to the dispatcher. As you can see, the
call was made at 21:59 or 9:59 PM.
3
The party continued to get louder, and it was obvious that SLOPD had not responded. At 10:18 PM, the mom
called SLOPD to report the loud party. Again, she told the dispatcher that the party was at the end of Hathway
Alley, across from Campus Bottle. The dispatcher asked for a specific address, and the mom did not want to get
dressed and walk to the end of the block to find the exact address, but told the dispatcher that the officers
would hear the party if they went to Hathway Alley, where it meets Hathway Avenue, across from Campus
Bottle. The party was very loud, and anyone within a block or two would hear the party. If officers went to
Hathway Alley near Campus Bottle, they would easily find the party. A screenshot of her call to SLOPD at (805)
781-7312 is below, and was made from phone number (805) 441- *. Her name and phone number were given
to the dispatcher. As you can see, the call was made at 22:18 or 10:18 PM.
The noise continued for another hour. The mom and dad turned on a fan and turned on white noise to try to
drown out the noisy party so they and their children could sleep. (This information was not shared with me until
the following day, 4/19/2025, when the mom and dad were complaining that they were exhausted because of
the loud party at the end of Hathway Alley that kept them awake until late, and that they'd each called SLOPD,
but the party wasn't stopped.)
SLOPD did not respond to either of their calls noted above, and neither call is shown on the SLOPD
dispatch log. The dispatch log covering that period is attached to this email for reference.
I have written to the City Council before about calls I've made to SLOPD for noisy parties that were not
responded to, and did not appear on the dispatch log. Other neighbors have reported the same problem. This is
another example of these occurrences. Please let me know why these two calls are not reflected in the dispatch
log.
4
Meanwhile, I heard loud parties on Friday night, 4/18/2025, too, that were violations of the noise ordinance all
around our home beginning at 8 PM. The music and screaming continued for hours, and it was difficult to
discern where exactly it was coming from, so I walked to find one fraternity party at 348 Hathway, which I
reported to SLOPD at 8:25 PM and documented with video. This is the Main Chapter House for Phi Sigma Kappa.
It is a documented illegal fraternity house. It took so long for SLOPD to respond that I called twice, and my
husband also called about 45 minutes after my initial call. The dispatcher told my husband that the officers who
responded to the fraternity party at 348 Hathway asked the guys to "take the party inside". SLOPD did not cite
the party, even though it was a violation of the noise ordinance, and the property is known by SLOPD and the
City to be an illegal fraternity house. The party was cleared by the officer as a "Negative Violation".
I will write a separate email about that situation and the fraternities overall because it's such a huge issue. This
past weekend, SLOPD was dispatched to 18 separate fraternity parties at fraternity houses in our neighborhood.
Only three of those have a Conditional Use Permit, and each of the parties violated the terms of their CUPs.
Most parties had 50 to 150 people listed on the citations, a figure reported by the fraternity member because
police officers don't count the partygoers. The fraternity at 1229 Fredericks Street is the Main Chapter House for
Phi Gamma Delta and is a documented illegal fraternity house in an R-2 residential neighborhood, yet SNAP
officers were sent to the fraternity party. This is one of several issues to be addressed by City leadership related
to illegal fraternity operations in the city.
I have advocated for CSOs to patrol our neighborhood on weekends because they have proven to be effective
when responding to noise calls. CSOs are also less expensive for the City than sworn officers, and could likely
respond much more quickly in many cases. It feels like torture when the party continues for prolonged periods
(like 348 Hathway Ave and 434 Hathway Ave on Friday, 4/18). It is also frustrating when there is no response
after police are called, or loud parties are cleared as a "Negative Violation" or "No Report".
Skipping forward to 11:00 PM on Friday night, I could still hear booming bass and people screaming and singing
along with the music from Hathway Alley, behind our home. This was the same party reported by the dad in the
photo at 9:59 PM and the mom in the photo at 10:18 PM. Based on the constant stream of females walking in
front of our house to a fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks Street, I thought the noise was coming from the
backyard of that fraternity, which backs up to Hathway Alley. I called SLOPD at 11:12 PM to report the fraternity
party.
After I called SLOPD, I decided to walk out to Hathway Alley to make sure that's where the noise was coming
from and found there was actually another larger party on Hathway Avenue, at the very end of Hathway Alley. I
didn't know that other people had already called SLOPD to report that party. I called SLOPD a second time and
reported the party at the end of Hathway Alley, across from Campus Bottle. A screenshot from my phone shows
my two calls to SLOPD at 11:12 PM for the fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks Street, and the second party at the
end of Hathway Alley at 11:15 PM.
5
The reason the second call at 11:15 PM took two minutes is that the dispatcher asked for an address, and I had
to walk down to the end of the alley to get the address from a mailbox while the dispatcher stayed on the line.
Initially, I told her that the officers would find it if they drove to Hathway Alley because it was very loud and they
couldn't miss it. I could hear it from inside my house, a block away. People were in the alley, and I was
uncomfortable walking down to find the address. But the dispatcher seemed to want a specific address, so I
walked down to the party and gave her the address of 434 Hathway Avenue. As I walked back to my home and
reached an area where I could not be seen by others, I took a video to document the party.
The music stopped about 15 minutes later when SLOPD arrived, but the officers cleared the party as "No
Report" which is the same as a negative violation. The citation shows the officers arrived at 11:27 PM and
cleared the call 13 minutes later at 11:40 PM, so presumably they were making contact with the partygoers
during that time. Logically, if there wasn't a party, it would be cleared within a few minutes of their arrival
because there is nothing to clear. I personally witnessed an enormous, noisy party and know it took time for
officers to deal with it.
It is frustrating that the party was not cited because it was incredibly loud and disturbing for over two hours,
since 9:30 PM! It was a clear violation of the noise ordinance, yet it was given a pass by SLOPD.
Everyone who lives in our City, including our neighborhood, deserves peace. It is codified in California's Health
& Safety Code (section 46000 (f)) that "All Californians are entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment without the intrusion
of noise which may be hazardous to their health or welfare". And yet our neighborhood does not have a peaceful and
quiet environment because it is disturbed by intrusive, ongoing loud parties nearly every weekend that Cal Poly
is in session. It is harmful to the health and general welfare of the residents who are unable to sleep or have the
quiet enjoyment of their property because of the continual noisy parties, screaming people, constant rideshare
6
traffic with slamming car doors, etc., that unnecessarily and unfairly keep us awake in our lower-density
residential neighborhood. When SLOPD does not hold those violating the noise ordinance responsible by citing
them, it enables those people to continue their behavior because there aren't consequences.
Regarding the dispatch log, SLOPD uses the "data" of calls received for noisy parties to compile reports as a
measurement of success (or not) in combating party noise. The data is used in an annual report to the City
Council, monthly reports to SCLC, RQN, etc. When the dispatch log is missing calls made for noisy parties, the
data is not accurate.
Further, when multiple calls are made for the same party by different people, SLOPD's records only count it as
one call, even if 10 people called. This method of data does not cover the full spectrum and harm caused when
multiple people call to complain because they are disturbed and affected by a noisy party. For these reasons,
the data is not a reliable indicator of the real number of calls received by SLOPD for noisy parties. Ten separate
calls do not equal one call, and citing only one call as "data" does not accurately tell the story of what occurred
if ten people were affected and called SLOPD to complain. Many of these enormous parties affect many
people and are doing catastrophic damage to our neighborhood.
Finally, SLOPD uses the data as an indicator of whether a call for a noisy party was valid or not. The problem is
that the data is not an accurate indicator of the actual noise and disturbances suffered by the neighborhood.
For example, on Friday, the party at 434 Hathway was not cited, even though it was a clear violation of the noise
ordinance. The same is true for the party at 348 Hathway earlier in the evening. I have videos of each party. I
have already sent SLOPD and the City Council many videos of parties at illegal fraternity houses near our home
that were cleared by SLOPD as a "Negative Violation" or "No Report". It is, unfortunately, not uncommon.
I'm not sure about how to rectify the situation, but I feel the City should track the true number of calls made by
each individual who calls to complain about a noisy party. This is the only way to ensure the data used by
SLOPD is accurate, to encompass every NSPY call received by whoever is affected and takes the time to call
SLOPD.
I also feel that some officers need to be trained further regarding the elements of the City's noise ordinance.
Some officers, in particular, who shall not be named at this time, tend to look the other way with noisy parties,
and it is a disservice to our neighborhood.
It's also important that CSOs are available to respond to our neighborhood on weekends. They are efficient,
effective, and less expensive than sworn officers. Spring is the outdoor party season with fraternities during the
day and at night, and it is a NIGHTMARE for our neighborhood. I can't emphasize this enough! This past
weekend, there were out-of-control parties with waterslides, blaring music, and hundreds of screaming people
in our neighborhood during the day, and many large, very loud parties at night. It is outrageous and completely
unacceptable. Please increase enforcement of the noisy parties on weekends in our neighborhood from now
until the end of Cal Poly's academic year, by deploying a quicker response (CSOs?) and more strictly enforcing
the noise ordinance, as was done leading up to St. Patrick's Day.
We love Cal Poly and feel that most of the college students are amazing, but the ongoing noisy large (mostly
fraternity) parties every weekend are over the top, and our neighborhood needs quicker and tougher
enforcement through June. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Kathie Walker
7
P.S. Please let me know why the two calls referenced above were not included in the SLOPD dispatch log and
had no response from police.
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Wednesday, April 23, 2025 8:30 PM
To:Scott, Rick
Cc:Mickel, Fred; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; CityClerk; Stewart, Erica A; Shoresman,
Michelle; Boswell, Mike; Francis, Emily; Marx, Jan; McDonald, Whitney
Subject:Re: Calls to SLOPD with no response / not on dispatch log & 18 frat parties last weekend
Chief Scott,
I appreciate the response. You overlooked the main question in my email. I'm trying to be respectful and work
together to get to the bottom of the problem. The reason I provided such detail in my email was so that you
could review the calls in your system to see what went wrong.
Two calls to SLOPD by separate people were not responded to on 4/17/2025, at 9:50 PM and 10:18 PM. Why
were they not in the SLOPD log, and why did SLOPD not respond to either call?
The extremely loud party continued for two hours beyond the time that the first person called, from 9:30 PM until
11:30 PM. I've attached a video taken 300 feet from the party at 11:20 PM, when I called about one hour after the
second call for that party was made to SLOPD.
I appreciate your time and working with our neighborhood to resolve this issue, as the missing calls have also
happened to me and other neighbors before. I want to understand how this could be happening. Please let me
know why two calls to SLOPD were not logged and did not receive responses from SLOPD. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kathie Walker
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Hathway Alley 1117 pm on 4.18.2025.mp4
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 7:26 PM Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> wrote:
BCC CC: (City Council blind copied)
Ms. Walker,
Thank you for your comments as we will take this under advisement. I know we’ve had previous discussions on
several occasions where you’ve expressed frustration about the department not logging each call to 911 for calls that
are already dispatched or being queued. The department went into detail at that time to provide you greater
understanding of our process. That is not customary with how emergency services are dispatched and ties up our
limited 911 staff even further and not necessary to expeditiously address an emergency call for help. I believe I
provided a similar example such as when a car crash occurs, we get a dozen or so phone calls depending on the
severity and the number of passerbys. Dispatch builds a single call and updates if new or differing information is
received by any other callers.
2
Although it has been suggested before that “the police did not respond” we have not found that to be accurate in
each of our call reviews previously. I also clarified that dispatch does not need an exact location of a noise complaint
and that is not our policy. If the caller doesn’t know, simply state “I don’t know” or invite the officer to respond to the
caller’s address to listen to what you are hearing and task them with finding the location on their own.
Please feel free to put the couple below in touch with the department should they have additional information to
provide from their perspective.
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: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:30 AM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily
<EFrancis@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike
<MBoswell@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>
Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross <
Subject: Calls to SLOPD with no response / not on dispatch log & 18 frat parties last weekend
Dear SLOPD Leadership and Elected Representatives,
3
The sweet family below - mom, dad, and two kids - live in the Alta Vista neighborhood in San Luis Obispo. The
mom and dad graduated from Cal Poly, moved away for employment, and worked very, very hard to save
enough money to move back to SLO, where mom was born in the 80s. In addition to working full-time at
demanding jobs, mom also teaches at Cal Poly, and both parents have other responsibilities in addition to
raising their children. This family needs to be able to sleep at night to function during the day.
To avoid using generalities, I want to focus on a specific documented instance experienced by this family this
past weekend.
On the night of Friday, 4/18/2025, it was extremely loud in the Alta Vista neighborhood with people screaming
and music blaring from various parties. By 9:30 PM, there was a very loud party on Hathway Avenue, at the end
of Hathway Alley, across from Campus Bottle. The family in the photo couldn't sleep because of the screaming
and music from the party. At 9:59 PM, the dad called SLOPD and reported the noisy party. He described to the
dispatcher that the party was at the end of Hathway Alley, across from Campus Bottle. He told the dispatcher
to have officers go to Hathway Alley where it meets Hathway Avenue, and they would see the party because it
can be heard from a block away. A screenshot of his call to SLOPD at (805) 781-7312 is below, and was made
from phone number (707) 478- *. His name and phone number were given to the dispatcher. As you can see,
the call was made at 21:59 or 9:59 PM.
4
The party continued to get louder, and it was obvious that SLOPD had not responded. At 10:18 PM, the mom
called SLOPD to report the loud party. Again, she told the dispatcher that the party was at the end of Hathway
Alley, across from Campus Bottle. The dispatcher asked for a specific address, and the mom did not want to
get dressed and walk to the end of the block to find the exact address, but told the dispatcher that the officers
would hear the party if they went to Hathway Alley, where it meets Hathway Avenue, across from Campus
Bottle. The party was very loud, and anyone within a block or two would hear the party. If officers went to
Hathway Alley near Campus Bottle, they would easily find the party. A screenshot of her call to SLOPD at (805)
781-7312 is below, and was made from phone number (805) 441- *. Her name and phone number were
given to the dispatcher. As you can see, the call was made at 22:18 or 10:18 PM.
The noise continued for another hour. The mom and dad turned on a fan and turned on white noise to try to
drown out the noisy party so they and their children could sleep. (This information was not shared with me until
the following day, 4/19/2025, when the mom and dad were complaining that they were exhausted because of
the loud party at the end of Hathway Alley that kept them awake until late, and that they'd each called SLOPD,
but the party wasn't stopped.)
SLOPD did not respond to either of their calls noted above, and neither call is shown on the SLOPD
dispatch log. The dispatch log covering that period is attached to this email for reference.
5
I have written to the City Council before about calls I've made to SLOPD for noisy parties that were not
responded to, and did not appear on the dispatch log. Other neighbors have reported the same problem. This is
another example of these occurrences. Please let me know why these two calls are not reflected in the
dispatch log.
Meanwhile, I heard loud parties on Friday night, 4/18/2025, too, that were violations of the noise ordinance all
around our home beginning at 8 PM. The music and screaming continued for hours, and it was difficult to
discern where exactly it was coming from, so I walked to find one fraternity party at 348 Hathway, which I
reported to SLOPD at 8:25 PM and documented with video. This is the Main Chapter House for Phi Sigma
Kappa. It is a documented illegal fraternity house. It took so long for SLOPD to respond that I called twice, and
my husband also called about 45 minutes after my initial call. The dispatcher told my husband that the officers
who responded to the fraternity party at 348 Hathway asked the guys to "take the party inside". SLOPD did not
cite the party, even though it was a violation of the noise ordinance, and the property is known by SLOPD and
the City to be an illegal fraternity house. The party was cleared by the officer as a "Negative Violation".
I will write a separate email about that situation and the fraternities overall because it's such a huge issue. This
past weekend, SLOPD was dispatched to 18 separate fraternity parties at fraternity houses in our
neighborhood. Only three of those have a Conditional Use Permit, and each of the parties violated the terms of
their CUPs. Most parties had 50 to 150 people listed on the citations, a figure reported by the fraternity member
because police officers don't count the partygoers. The fraternity at 1229 Fredericks Street is the Main Chapter
House for Phi Gamma Delta and is a documented illegal fraternity house in an R-2 residential neighborhood,
yet SNAP officers were sent to the fraternity party. This is one of several issues to be addressed by
City leadership related to illegal fraternity operations in the city.
I have advocated for CSOs to patrol our neighborhood on weekends because they have proven to be effective
when responding to noise calls. CSOs are also less expensive for the City than sworn officers, and could likely
respond much more quickly in many cases. It feels like torture when the party continues for prolonged periods
(like 348 Hathway Ave and 434 Hathway Ave on Friday, 4/18). It is also frustrating when there is no response
after police are called, or loud parties are cleared as a "Negative Violation" or "No Report".
Skipping forward to 11:00 PM on Friday night, I could still hear booming bass and people screaming and singing
along with the music from Hathway Alley, behind our home. This was the same party reported by the dad in the
photo at 9:59 PM and the mom in the photo at 10:18 PM. Based on the constant stream of females walking in
front of our house to a fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks Street, I thought the noise was coming from the
backyard of that fraternity, which backs up to Hathway Alley. I called SLOPD at 11:12 PM to rep ort the fraternity
party.
After I called SLOPD, I decided to walk out to Hathway Alley to make sure that's where the noise was coming
from and found there was actually another larger party on Hathway Avenue, at the very end of Hathway Alley. I
didn't know that other people had already called SLOPD to report that party. I called SLOPD a second time and
reported the party at the end of Hathway Alley, across from Campus Bottle. A screenshot from my phone
6
shows my two calls to SLOPD at 11:12 PM for the fraternity party at 1229 Fredericks Street, and the second
party at the end of Hathway Alley at 11:15 PM.
The reason the second call at 11:15 PM took two minutes is that the dispatcher asked for an address, and I had
to walk down to the end of the alley to get the address from a mailbox while the dispatcher stayed on the line.
Initially, I told her that the officers would find it if they drove to Hathway Alley because it was very loud and they
couldn't miss it. I could hear it from inside my house, a block away. People were in the alley, and I was
uncomfortable walking down to find the address. But the dispatcher seemed to want a specific address, so I
walked down to the party and gave her the address of 434 Hathway Avenue. As I walked back to my home and
reached an area where I could not be seen by others, I took a video to document the party.
The music stopped about 15 minutes later when SLOPD arrived, but the officers cleared the party as "No
Report" which is the same as a negative violation. The citation shows the officers arrived at 11:27 PM and
cleared the call 13 minutes later at 11:40 PM, so presumably they were making contact with the partygoers
during that time. Logically, if there wasn't a party, it would be cleared within a few minutes of their arrival
because there is nothing to clear. I personally witnessed an enormous, noisy party and know it took time for
officers to deal with it.
It is frustrating that the party was not cited because it was incredibly loud and disturbing for over two hours,
since 9:30 PM! It was a clear violation of the noise ordinance, yet it was given a pass by SLOPD.
7
Everyone who lives in our City, including our neighborhood, deserves peace. It is codified in California's Health
& Safety Code (section 46000 (f)) that "All Californians are entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment without the intrusion
of noise which may be hazardous to their health or welfare". And yet our neighborhood does not have a peaceful and
quiet environment because it is disturbed by intrusive, ongoing loud parties nearly every weekend that Cal Poly
is in session. It is harmful to the health and general welfare of the residents who are unable to sleep or have the
quiet enjoyment of their property because of the continual noisy parties, screaming people, constant rideshare
traffic with slamming car doors, etc., that unnecessarily and unfairly keep us awake in our lower-density
residential neighborhood. When SLOPD does not hold those violating the noise ordinance responsible by
citing them, it enables those people to continue their behavior because there aren't consequences.
Regarding the dispatch log, SLOPD uses the "data" of calls received for noisy parties to compile reports as a
measurement of success (or not) in combating party noise. The data is used in an annual report to the City
Council, monthly reports to SCLC, RQN, etc. When the dispatch log is missing calls made for noisy parties, the
data is not accurate.
Further, when multiple calls are made for the same party by different people, SLOPD's records only count it as
one call, even if 10 people called. This method of data does not cover the full spectrum and harm caused when
multiple people call to complain because they are disturbed and affected by a noisy party. For these reasons,
the data is not a reliable indicator of the real number of calls received by SLOPD for noisy parties. Ten separate
calls do not equal one call, and citing only one call as "data" do es not accurately tell the story of what occurred
if ten people were affected and called SLOPD to complain. Many of these enormous parties affect many
people and are doing catastrophic damage to our neighborhood.
Finally, SLOPD uses the data as an indicator of whether a call for a noisy party was valid or not. The problem is
that the data is not an accurate indicator of the actual noise and disturbances suffered by the neighborhood.
For example, on Friday, the party at 434 Hathway was not cited, even though it was a clear violation of the noise
ordinance. The same is true for the party at 348 Hathway earlier in the evening. I have videos of each party. I
have already sent SLOPD and the City Council many videos of pa rties at illegal fraternity houses near our home
that were cleared by SLOPD as a "Negative Violation" or "No Report". It is, unfortunately, not uncommon.
8
I'm not sure about how to rectify the situation, but I feel the City should track the true number of calls made by
each individual who calls to complain about a noisy party. This is the only way to ensure the data used by
SLOPD is accurate, to encompass every NSPY call received by whoever is affected and takes the time to call
SLOPD.
I also feel that some officers need to be trained further regarding the elements of the City's noise ordinance.
Some officers, in particular, who shall not be named at this time, tend to look the other way with noisy parties,
and it is a disservice to our neighborhood.
It's also important that CSOs are available to respond to our neighborhood on weekends. They are efficient,
effective, and less expensive than sworn officers. Spring is the outdoor party season with fraternities during the
day and at night, and it is a NIGHTMARE for our neighborhood. I can't emphasize this enough! This past
weekend, there were out-of-control parties with waterslides, blaring music, and hundreds of screaming people
in our neighborhood during the day, and many large, very loud parties at night. It is outrageous and completely
unacceptable. Please increase enforcement of the noisy parties on weekends in our neighborhood from now
until the end of Cal Poly's academic year, by deploying a quicker response (CSOs?) and more strictly enforcing
the noise ordinance, as was done leading up to St. Patrick's Day.
We love Cal Poly and feel that most of the college students are amazing, but the ongoing noisy large (mostly
fraternity) parties every weekend are over the top, and our neighborhood needs quicker and tougher
enforcement through June. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Kathie Walker
P.S. Please let me know why the two calls referenced above were not included in the SLOPD dispatch log and
had no response from police.
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Thursday, May 1, 2025 6:49 PM
To:Mickel, Fred; Scott, Rick; Wallace, Christine
Cc:Brett Cross; Carolyn Smith; Sandra Rowley
Subject:Cinco de Mayo parties, Saturday 5/3/2025
Attachments:Spring 2025 Cal Poly Fraternity Addresses w Source of Documentation .docx
In case you're not following social media, there have been many posts about a block party for Cinco de Mayo on
Hathway this weekend since 3/15/2025 (St. Fratty's Day).
After St. Fratty's Day, there were multiple posts on Cal Poly YikYak about organizing a Cinco de Mayo party in the
neighborhood on Saturday, May 3rd. Some screenshots are below.
Today, 5/1/2025, posts on Cal Poly's YikYak refer to a block party, presumably in our neighborhood, for Cinco de
Mayo on Saturday, May 3, 2025. Screenshots are below.
2
Even if the students can't organize a block party, it seems there will be parties for the occasion in our
neighborhood this weekend. I wanted to give you a heads up so there are enough officers and CSOs available to
respond.
I have also attached the addresses of known fraternity houses again for your reference.
Thank you,
Kathie Walker
1
Total Number of Fraternities at Cal Poly: 19 – Cal Poly continues to recruit new fraternity chapters to its campus without any provisions
for the location of the fraternity houses. The main chapter houses for the most recently
recruited fraternity chapters are illegally located in rental houses in R-1/R-2 neighborhoods.
Fraternities with Valid Conditional Use Permits: 6*
Fraternity Address Year Established at Cal Poly
1. Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd 1969
2. Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista 1989 (On probation 10/25/2024)
3. Delta Upsilon 720 E. Foothill Blvd 1989
4. Lambda Chi Alpha 1264 E. Foothill Blvd 1978
5. Phi Kappa Psi 1335 E. Foothill Blvd 1966 (On probation 11/6/2024, pending investigation)
6. Sigma Nu 1304 E. Foothill Blvd 1985
*Sigma Nu has two CUPs, so there is a total of 7 CUPs for fraternity operations in SLO.
Fraternity Operations Identified in the City of SLO: 91
Fraternity Properties Operating Legally with Use Permit: 7
Illegal Operations at Houses in R1 / R-2 neighborhoods: 71
Illegal Operations at Houses in other zones: 13
Fraternities with Main Chapter House in R-1/R-2 neighborhoods:
Fraternity Address Year Established at Cal Poly (Cal Poly continues to recruit new chapters1)
1. Alpha Sigma Phi 1218/1220 Bond Street 2018
2. Delta Sigma Phi 1684/1688 Mill Street re-established 2023
3. Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway Avenue 2014
4. Phi Delta Theta 260 Chaplin Lane 2022
5. Phi Gamma Delta 1229 Fredericks Street 2021
6. Phi Sigma Kappa 348/350 Hathway Avenue 1991
7. Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays Street 1990
1 After Carson Starkey died of alcohol intoxication at a satellite fraternity house, Cal Poly President, Jeff Armstrong delayed recruitment/rush of freshman men until winter
quarter. In May 2013, Dr. Armstrong entered into an agreement with the Interfraternity Council called the Deferred Recruitment Compromise which allowed fraternities to
resume recruiting freshman in the fall 2014. The agreement states that Cal Poly will actively recruit new fraternity chapters to its campus. It also requires fraternities to register
their parties with Greek Life administration beforehand, listing the specific addresses of each event, which are approved by Cal Poly administration.
2
8. Sigma Pi 1525 Slack Street re-established 2008
9. Theta Chi 1820 Hope Street re-established 2000
Other locations of non-permitted Main Chapter Houses:
10. Pi Kappa Phi operates at 66 Rafael Way (R1) 2018
It also has a main house in the County at former restaurant “This Old House” at 740 W. Foothill Blvd
11. Beta Theta Pi operates main house without a CUP at 1327 E. Foothill Blvd 1986
12. Zeta Beta Tau operates main house without a CUP at 654/658 Graves Ave 2009
13. Alpha Gamma Rho is suspended and will likely re-apply for a CUP in 2025 1975-2023
3
CAL POLY SLO FRATERNITY HOUSES2
# Fraternity Address Status of Operation Documentation3 Response from the City
1 Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd (R4) CUP U1099 (MAIN) AB 524 list + Re-review of CUP 11/13/2024 by PC
2 331 Hathway Ave (R2) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat
3 Alpha Sigma Phi 1218 & 1220 Bond Street (R1) MAIN CHAPTER AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
4 299 Albert Drive (R1) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
5 Beta Theta Pi 1327 E. Foothill Blvd (R4) MAIN CHAPTER AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
6 1220 Fredericks St (R2) AB 524 list +
7 556 Hathway (R2) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
8 68 Chorro (R1) AB 524 list +
9 Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista Place (R4) CUP U106-98 (MAIN) AB 524 list +
10 1270 Fredericks (R2) (formerly Theta Chi ’22-‘23) Rush events ‘23 - ‘24
11 Delta Sigma Phi 1684 & 1688 Mill St (R2) MAIN CHAPTER Rush Fall ‘24
12 589 Cuesta Dr (R1) Rush Fall ‘24
13 Delta Upsilon 720 E. Foothill Blvd (R4) CUP U36-09 (MAIN) AB 524 list +
14 1700 Fredericks (R1) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat
15 281 Albert (R1) AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
16 388 Chaplin (R1) AB 524 list +
17 1861 Slack (R1) AB 524 list +
18 1868 Loomis (R1) Rush Fall ‘24
19Theta Chi since 2024 1555 Slack (R1) AB 524 list+
2Main chapter houses for each fraternity are in bold. Houses located in residential zones R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods are highlighted. Properties in other zones are in blue.
3 “AB 524” means the address was 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 and there are photos/documentation of fraternity with their Greek letters at the address.
4
20 Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway (R1) MAIN CHAPTER AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
21 322 Hathway (R2) AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
22 108 Crandall Way (R4) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
23 526 Kentucky (R2) AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat
24 1990 McCollum (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
25 311 E. Foothill Blvd (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
26 293 Albert (R1) Social media post+
27 1861 Hope (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
28 146 Stenner (R4) Social media posts
29 1142 Montalban (T-C) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
30 618 Felton (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
31 Lambda Chi Alpha 1264 Foothill Blvd (R4) CUP 0331-2023 (MAIN) AB 524 list +
1241 Monte Vista (R4) (included in CUP) AB 524 list
1243 Monte Vista (R4) (included in CUP) AB 524 list
1245 Monte Vista (R4) (included in CUP)
1251 Monte Vista (R4) (included in CUP)
32 171 Orange (R1) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
33 12 Hathway (R1) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
34 253 Albert Drive (R1) New 2023- Rush+
35 278 Albert Drive (R1) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
36 285 Chaplin (R1) Social media post
37 178 Chaplin (R1) AB 524 list
220 Kentucky Street
38 Phi Delta Theta 260 Chaplin Ln (R1) MAIN CHAPTER New 2023 – Rush+
39 470 Grand Ave (R1) Social media post +
40 251 Highland Dr (R1) Rush Event +
41 568 Ellen Way (R2) Rush Event +
42 Phi Gamma Delta 1229 Fredericks St. (R2) MAIN CHAPTER New 2023, Rush+Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
43 1254 Bond (R1) AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat
44 1256 Bond (R1) AB 524 list +
45 385 Chaplin (R1) AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat
5
46 Phi Kappa Psi 1335 E. Foothill (R4) CUP 47-10 (MAIN) AB 524 list+
47 237 Albert Drive (R1) AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat
48 2061 Hope St (R-1) New 2023, Rush+
49 1271 Stafford (R2) New in 2023 +
50 1273 Stafford (R2) New in 2023 +
51 1275 Stafford (R2) New in 2023 +
52 346 Grand (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
53 1740 Fredericks (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
54 1276 Bond (R1) Rush Fall ‘24
55 Phi Sigma Kappa 348 & 350 Hathway (R2) MAIN CHAPTER AB 524 list +
56 1908 Loomis (R1) AB 524 list +
57 Pi Kappa Phi 740 W. Foothill Blvd (R4) COUNTY LOCATION AB 524 list +
58 66 Rafael Way (R1) MAIN CHAPTER IN CITY 2023 Rush Event +
59
60 447 N. Chorro (R1) 2023 Rush Event +
61 Sigma Nu 1304 Foothill Blvd (R4) CUP U1484 (MAIN) AB 524 list
62 1292 Foothill (R4) CUP U-109 Social media post +
63 301 Hathway (R2) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat
64 1621 McCollum (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
65 290 Chaplin (R1) Social media post +
66 1841 Slack (R1) (Zeta Beta Tau until 2024) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
67 1632 Fredericks (R1) Rush Fall ‘24
1541 Slack (R1)
68 Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays (R-1) (Pi Kappa Phi until 2023) New 2023 Rush+ Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
69 1725 Santa Barbara4 AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
70 Sigma Pi 1525 Slack (R1) MAIN CHAPTER AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat
4 Sigma Phi Epsilon relocated to 2090 Hays in Fall 2023. It’s unclear if they still occupy 1725 Santa Barbara.
6
71 124 Stenner (R4) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
72 Theta Chi 1820 Hope (R1) MAIN CHAPTER AB 524 list Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
73 496 Kentucky (R2) New 2023 Rush+Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
74 1350 Stafford (R2)5 New 2023 Rush+Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
75 1238 E. Foothill (R4) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
76 1441 Slack (R1) AB 524 list Notice of Violation – illegal fraternity
77 410 Grand Ave (R1)6 New in 2023 +
78 191 Kentucky (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
79 2149 Santa Ynez (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
80 1661 McCollum (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
81 248 & 250 Grand (R2) (Sigma Nu until 2024) Rush events+2024 Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
82 Zeta Beta Tau 654 Graves (R4) MAIN CHAPTER AB 524 list +
83 658 Graves (R4) AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
84 1928 Garfield (R4) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
85 244 Albert Drive (R1) AB 524 list +
86 2044 Loomis (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
87 286 California (R4) Social media post
88 212 Albert Dr (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
89 2044 McCollum (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
90 1646 Fredericks St (R1) Rush Fall ‘24
91 Alpha Gamma Rho 132 California Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT (U 144-97) - CUP Revoked*
*Not in good standing with Cal Poly, Suspended until Fall 2025
92 1130 Olive (CC) AB 524 Advisory Letter – illegal frat
5 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 given to Community Development on 11/8/2023.
6 Located across the street from 1820 Hope, both have Theta Chi flags posted on their property
7
Fraternity Recruitment/Rush Events during Fall 2024 included but were not limited to events at the following addresses:
Friday 10/4/2024:
1684-1688 Mill Street (Delta Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
281 Albert Drive (Delta Upsilon) MAIN SATELLITE HOUSE – Permitted house at 720 E. Foothill
248-250 Grand Ave (Theta Chi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE WITH 1844 MCCOLLUM (Shared Yards)
281 Hathway Ave (Kappa Sigma) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
348-350 Hathway Ave (Phi Sigma Kappa) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
1525 Slack St (Sigma Pi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
2090 Hays (Sigma Epsilon) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
1218-1220 Bond St (Alpha Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
1229 Fredericks (Phi Gamma Delta aka FIJI) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
654 & 658 Graves (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
Saturday 10/5/2024:
654 & 658 Graves (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
299 Albert (Alpha Sigma Phi)
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 last year
322 Hathway (Kappa Sigma)
1908 Loomis (Phi Sigma Kappa)
1276 Bond St (Phi Kappa Psi)
589 Cuesta Drive (Delta Sigma Phi)
1555 Slack St (Sigma Pi)
Sunday 10/6/2024
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)
1868 Loomis (Delta Upsilon)
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 8:14 PM
To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John; Salem, Rami; E-mail Council Website
Cc:Dietrick, Christine; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Stewjenkins
Info
Subject:Kappa Sigma Fraternity at 281 Hathway Ave
Attachments:281 Hathway Avenue . Kappa Sigma Fraternity.pdf
Dear City Leadership,
On Friday, 5/9/2025, I reported a potential fraternity-related event at Kappa Sigma's Main Chapter House at 281
Hathway Avenue. In my email, I said there was a large inflatable waterslide set up in the backyard, visible from
the front of the house, which likely meant there would be a dayge (or party) on Saturday, 5/10/2025.
Subsequently, the City opened a case to investigate the event through the AskSLO app. Today, I received
notification that the City was "unable to verify" a fraternity-related event happened at 281 Hathway Avenue on
Saturday, 5/10/2025. A screenshot of the email I received is below:
Also today, Kappa Sigma fraternity posted about its fraternity event held at 281 Hathway on Saturday,
5/10/2025. A direct link to their post is
here: https://www.instagram.com/p/DJpeFZFTHhN/?hl=en&img_index=1 . Screenshots of the post are below,
including a photo of the inflatable waterslide I referenced in my email on Friday, 5/9/2025:
2
The fraternity seal on the back of the house at 281 Hathway and is visible in the group photo, above. I have also
attached documentation that shows Kappa Sigma has operated a fraternity at 281 Hathway Avenue for many
years. My documentation starts in Fall 2021, and the timeline continues to the present date.
I am curious about what the process is for the City to verify a violation when it is reported, and I don't
understand why the City was "unable to verify" this fraternity event.
The standard of proof for whether 281 Hathway Avenue is operating as a fraternity is a "preponderance of the
evidence," which means it is more likely than not. The documentation provided, including the documents
attached, far exceeds that burden.
3
I have also attached a video of a party at 281 Hathway on 4/12/2025. SLOPD cleared the party with a "Negative
Violation". After the party was shut down by SLOPD, fraternity members walked past our house. Some were so
intoxicated that they had difficulty walking. The conversation between two fraternity members references a "Big-
Little Night" which is an event hosted by fraternities.
I am requesting that the City prosecute the property owner of 281 Hathway Avenue, which is zoned R-1, for
ongoing illegal fraternity operation under SLOMC Code SLOMC 17.02.030 and SLOMC 17.16.010, consistent
with the case filed against the fraternity operating illegally in 1989. That case was previously provided to the
City, including the City Attorney, in January. The property at 281 Hathway Avenue has been a nuisance for a very
long time. The property owner and the fraternity members know that it is illegal to operate a fraternity at the
address, yet they continue to do so without consequence. It is time to start taking the matter seriously and
protect our neighborhood from the illegal fraternity operations.
Please let me know if you need any other information.
Thank you,
Kathie Walker
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of
this picture from the Internet. 4.12.2025 Kappa Sigma party 281 Hathway and frat guys afterward .mp4
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of
this picture from the Internet.
Kappa Sigma: Main Chapter House 281 Hathway Avenue
Satellite Houses 322 Hathway Avenue
108 Crandall Way
1990 McCollum Steet
1861 Hope Street
1142 Montalban
“New” frat house in the Fall of 2023: 293 Albert Drive
No longer operating as a fraternity:526 Kentucky Street
Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report (10/1/2023) identifying the addresses that Kappa Sigma held
events during the 2022-2023 academic year:
Most events for Kappa Sigma were held at 281 Hathway Avenue, according to
the AB 524 report. Some events were not listed on the report, such as Fall
rush events (see page 3).
1
Kappa Sigma Instagram post 10/3/2021 for Fall Rush events identify fraternity related events at
1646 Fredericks (now Zeta Beta Tau)and 108 Crandall Way.*
Fall 2021
*During this academic year (2021-2022) Kappa Sigma also had fraternity-related events at
281 Hathway Ave and 322 Hathway Avenue, including parties on 3/12/2022, “St. Fratty’s Day”.
Spring 2022
SLOPD log on 3/12/2022 “St. Fratty’s Day”. 281 Hathway was issued 3 citations incl.
unruly gathering. Citations were issued to fraternity members of Kappa Sigma.
2
Kappa Sigma Instagram, post 10/1/2022 for Fall Rush events identify fraternity-related events
at 281 Hathway Ave (Wednesday Oct 5th) and 322 Hathway Avenue (Thursday Oct. 6th)
Fall 2022:
Sigma Kappa events Wed 10/5/2022 and Thurs 10/6/2022 are not listed on Cal Poly’s AB 524
Report
Events
(10/5,
10/6 &
10/8)
should
be here
3
Spring 2023:
Photo taken at 281 Hathway Avenue
The Kappa Sigma fraternity emblem is mounted to the side of the house at
281 Hathway Avenue is still mounted on the rear of the house today, April 2025,
as shown on next page.
Kappa Sigma Instagram, post 4/16//2023 of executive committee posing in backyard of 281
Hathway, with fraternity emblem mounted on the back of the house.
4
St. Fratty’s Day, 281 Hathway Avenue, 3/18/2023
(above)
Also attended by Beta Theta Pi per its AB 524 Report
(right)
281 Hathway Avenue
281 1/2
Still photo from drone footage on 3/15/2025
5
Cal Poly fraternities hold an annual beer dye tournament in the Spring in the residential
neighborhood. In 2023, it was held at 281 Hathway Avenue (Kappa Sigma) and Alpha Sigma Phi
posted on Instagram that they won the tournament. Alpha Sigma Phi’s main chapter house is
illegally operating at 1218 Bond Street (R-1) and its “satellite house” at 299 Albert Drive (R-1).
Aerial photo of 281 Hathway
Beer dye table in backyard of 281
Hathway Avenue (above) and photo of
backyard (right) verifying location with
landmarks noted on both photos
“Brothers wait all year to compete in our annual dye
tournament and take home the belt…”
6
Fall 2023:
Photo taken at 281 Hathway Avenue
Front yard
Kappa Sigma Instagram, post 10/6/2023 with Rush Chairs in front of the Main Chapter House at 281
Hathway Avenue (top photo) and in the backyard of 281 Hathway Avenue (bottom photo).
Photo taken at 281 Hathway Avenue
Back yard
7
Winter 2024:
Kappa Sigma Instagram post 1/21/2024 for Winter Rush features photos of fraternity-related events held at
281 Hathway Avenue. The video posted also has video footage of events at 281 Hathway.
“Themed gathering” (above) taken in
backyard of 281 Hathway
Dayge in backyard of 281 Hathway
(left)
8
9
Spring 2024:
Kappa Sigma Instagram, post 4/7//2024 of executive committee posing in backyard of 281 Hathway, with
fraternity bench and Greek letters.
10
Article from Mustang News, 4/2/2024: https://mustangnews.net/st-frattys-recap/
Junior Owen Beim, fraternity member of the Kappa Sigma said the fraternity has two
fraternity houses on Hathway Ave. Kappa Sigma was planning to not host any events because
they knew the risks.
Beim lives in an apartment unit by Campus Bottle. He said he woke up at 6 a.m. because it was so
loud and walked outside. Both of the Kappa Sigma houses were flooded by people, according to
Beim. He went over to the house and stood in the front yard, trying to get people off of their front
lawn.
“We knew that the police were going to give unruly gathering tickets and noise tickets if they saw a
substantial amount of people in a front yard,” Beim said. “For the house I was at, the police were
helping us out a lot which was super kind of them because they knew we were trying to get people
out.”
At the other house, Kappa Sigma received a $700 dollar ticket, which Beim said was a
bummer but that he understood. They were considering appealing it because of the advice of a
police officer.
Note: There was a huge fraternity party at 281 Hathway on St. Fratty’s Day, 3/16/2024. A photo
from the backyard of 281 Hathway during the party is on the next page.
Winter 2025:
Spring 2024, continued:
Photo of party in the
backyard of 281 Hathway
Ave on 3/16/2024 in the
morning (right).
Kappa Sigma fraternity posted a photo of its fraternity bench with Greek letters is in the
backyard of 281 Hathway Avenue against the side fence (south) and is still in that location
today, April 2025, as shown on next page.11
Still photo from drone footage on 3/15/2025
12
The fraternity’s rush events were
published on physical “rush cards” and
handed out to potential new members at
a BBQ on Dexter Lawn on Thursday,
1/16/2025 from 4 – 7 p.m. with a SKU
for registration to receive the addresses
of the events.
In January 2025, the City and code
enforcement had met with Cal Poly and
given a presentation to the fraternities
about the City’s regulations and laws, so
for the first time ever, the addresses
were not published publicly (online)
because fraternities knew they are not
legally allowed to hold fraternity-related
events in R-1 and R-2 residential
neighborhoods. Instead of complying,
the fraternities held the events anyway
and hid the addresses from the public
and the city.
Code Enforcement officials responded to a complaint about the rush event on Friday afternoon,
1/17/2025 , but the fraternity members refused to answer the door. Code Enforcement officials
reported hearing voices in the backyard but did not cite the event because the fraternity
members did not answer the door. The complaint was dismissed as “unable to verify”.
Screenshot taken on 1/18/2025
January 18, 2025: Kappa Sigma posted photo of fraternity rush event “yesterday” 1/17/2025 from
3-5 p.m. in the backyard of 281 Hathway Avenue. (screenshot of post below)
13
March 4, 2025: Kappa Sigma posted photo of executive committee with Greek letters on fraternity
bench in the backyard of 281 Hathway Avenue.
14
Matt Hernandez is Kappa Sigma’s Grand Master, per Kappa Sigma’s Instagram post.
The Tribunereporterinterviewed fraternity members of Kappa Sigma, includingMatt Hernandez, and the
fraternity members admitted Kappa Sigma’s main chapter house is in an R-1 zone, and they have two
fraternity houses on Hathway. The interview took place at 281 Hathway Avenue.
Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report and my documentation provided to the City on 11/8/2023 identify that Kappa
Sigma’s main chapter house at 281 Hathway, an R-1 zone, and its satellite fraternity house at 322 Hathway,
an R-2 zone.
From the Tribune article:
“Members of Kappa Sigma told The Tribune that their house — located in the lowest-density (R-1) zoning
area — has hosted parties and rush events over the past year, but they said they haven’t hosted any events
within the last two months.
[The fraternity members failed to tell the reporter that Kappa Sigma was on academic probation for the past
two months, therefore was not allowed to have events.]
“In the past, yes, we have,” said Matt Hernandez, a resident of the house.
“Last year we lived on Stenner Street, and that was a lot different,” another resident said. “It was a lot more
families and people that didn’t prefer a fraternity living next to them. That was definitely a lot more of a
challenge to have social events. ... We definitely could have probably made more of an effort to be a little
quieter, but on Hathway it’s a lot more chill.”
15
16
The history does not include the noise complaints at 281 ½ Hathway, an ADU on the same
property with a shared backyard where the fraternity hosts events. It is eligible for DACs and
citations separate from the main house at 281 Hathway, even though both properties are
occupied by Kapps Sigma fraternity members and host fraternity-related events there. The
address was included in a previous records request made for my report given to the City on
11/8/2023, below:
Noise citation on 4/26/2025 at 281 Hathway shows 100 people at the party. Citation was issued to
Ryan Fallon and he is identified on social media as a member of Kappa Sigma:
SLOPD history of noise calls at 281 Hathway not including the Citation on 4/26/2025, above:
Fall 2024 to
present
(2024-2025)
academic year
2023-2024
academic year
2022-2023
academic year
The portion of the report I submitted in 2023 related to Kappa Sigma is on the following 4 pages.
Friday, May 9, 2025, an email was sent to Community Development regarding probably party at
281 Hathway Avenue on Saturday, May 10, 2025, which said:
“…There is a huge inflatable water slide right now in the backyard of 281 Hathway which
may be for a dayge tomorrow… it seems there will be a fraternity event at 281 Hathway this
weekend. The fraternity does not currently have a fence across its driveway, but will put one
up when they start their party, so the event is not visible to the public or law enforcement.”
Indeed, a fence was put up across the driveway on Saturday, May 10,2025 and Kappa Sigma held
an event in its backyard.
On Tuesday, May 13, 2025, I received a notification that a code violation was submitted via the
AskSLO app, Ask SLO New Request # 11780. A screenshot of the email is below:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2025, I received a notification that the City was “unable to verify” a code
violation, or that the fraternity had held an event at 281 Hathway Ave on Saturday, May 10. 2025.
However, the fraternity did hold an event all day at 281 Hathway Ave on Saturday, May 10.2025.
On Wednesday, May 14, 2025, Kappa Sigma posted the event, with photos from the backyard of
281 Hathway Avenue, on its Instagram page. The post said:
“Our annual Kappa Sigma Parents Weekend was one for the books.A huge thank you to all
the parents and families that came into town last weekend! We had such a blast spending a
few days with you guys! Also a huge shoutout to @joe_croney for organizing an amanzing
weekend. Would not have been possible without you!!!”
281 Hathway Ave is a residential home with an ADU in a single-family residential
neighborhood zoned R-1. It is illegal for fraternities to host fraternity-related events at that
address. Cal Poly and the fraternity members are aware of the law.
Kappa Sigma’s Instagram post referencing fraternity event on the weekend of May 10-11, 2025.
Photos show event in the backyard of 281 Hathway Avenue, including inflatable waterslide
referenced in my email on May 9, 2025,
Why was the City “unable to verify” this event?
The standard of proof for whether 281 Hathway Ave is operating as a
fraternity is a “preponderance of the evidence” which means IT IS
MORE LIKELY THAN NOT. The documentation exceeds that burden.
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Friday, May 16, 2025 4:52 PM
To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Subject:Re: Alpha Epsilon Pi - 280 California
Timmi,
After going over the CUP, I see additional violations for each event cited by SLOPD last month:
The fraternity is required to apply for a special event permit if occupancy exceeds 25 people. They held events
with 150 people and 100 people, and did not apply for a special event permit. Additionally, they did not notify
neighbors within 300 feet of their property of each of the events they held, which is required by Condition 10.
Also, both events had amplified music with loud bass. We could hear them from our house, a block away, and
the amplified noise is the reason each event received a noise citation. Condition 11 says that amplified sound is
prohibited.
Please let me know what action has or is going to be taken, if any, for the multiple violations of the CUP.
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 3:42 PM kathie walker < > wrote:
Hi Timmi,
I'm following up on the email I sent on 4/17/2025 regarding Alpha Epsilon Pi's CUP.
On Wednesday, 4/16/2025, a noise citation was issued at 10:55 PM with 150 people listed at the fraternity
event. This event violates multiple conditions of the fraternity's CUP at 280 California Blvd and constitutes a
public nuisance, per the SLOMC. It is especially egregious because there were 150 people, six times the
maximum occupancy of 25 people legally allowed by the fraternity's CUP.
2
On Friday, 4/18/2025, a noise citation was issued at 10:11 PM with 100 people listed at the fraternity
event. This event violates multiple conditions of the fraternity's CUP at 280 California Blvd. and exceeds the
maximum occupancy limit of 25 by 75 people, or four times the limit.
Condition 4 states that the maximum occupancy cannot exceed 25 people. It also states that a
transportation management plan is required for events that exceed 25 people.
Condition 9 states that the fraternity shall comply with the City's noise ordinance.
Condition 12 says that the permit may be revoked if the fraternity fails to comply with any of the conditions or
code requirements, or the conduct is a violation of the law, or constitutes a public nuisance or causes adverse
impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity.
During the Planning Commission hearing on 11/13/2024, there was significant discussion about Condition
12. Commissioners confirmed that a noise violation is a "public nuisance" according to the city's municipal
code. 9.12.010 defines a noise violation as a "public nuisance".
3
At the conclusion of the hearing, it was the understanding of the Commissioners that the fraternity would
return to the Planning Commission if there was a single violation of the noise ordinance.
Commissioner Tolle made the following comment:
At 1:17:24: Commissioner Tolle: "Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that the Applicant is aware that if another violation
occurs, you’re going to be right back in here and we’re going to have to do this all over again. I get it. I understand frat life.
But you’re in a neighborhood. You’re not out in a Greek Row. That’s what’s before us today. So I just want to make that
clear because I feel that the conditions aren’t that strict, as far as repercussions are concerned, so the only thing that we
can lean on is that you will be back here if it happens again."
In my email on 4/17/2025, I said that during the hearing on 11/13/2024, the Commissioners discussed the
terms of the CUP, and they warned the fraternity members that if the fraternity gets a single citation, the
Commissioners wanted the CUP to be revisited. I asked what action you would take regarding the matter.
You responded that you would review with Code Enforcement, look at the CUP, and the hearing record
from 11/13/2024.
At the time of my email, the fraternity had only received one citation with 150 people. That event violated
multiple conditions of the CUP. After my email, the fraternity received the second citation with 100 people,
which also violated multiple conditions of the CUP.
I have not heard back from you.
Based on the multiple violations of the conditions of the CUP, I believe the fraternity should go back to the
Planning Commission, as was stated by the Commissioners on 11/13/2024. Would you please let me know
what actions have or are going to be taken to resolve this issue?
Thank you and have a great weekend.
-Kathie
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Friday, May 16, 2025 3:43 PM
To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Cc:Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Stewjenkins Info
Subject:Re: Alpha Epsilon Pi - 280 California
Flag Status:Flagged
Hi Timmi,
I'm following up on the email I sent on 4/17/2025 regarding Alpha Epsilon Pi's CUP.
On Wednesday, 4/16/2025, a noise citation was issued at 10:55 PM with 150 people listed at the fraternity
event. This event violates multiple conditions of the fraternity's CUP at 280 California Blvd and constitutes a
public nuisance, per the SLOMC. It is especially egregious because there were 150 people, six times the
maximum occupancy of 25 people legally allowed by the fraternity's CUP.
On Friday, 4/18/2025, a noise citation was issued at 10:11 PM with 100 people listed at the fraternity event. This
event violates multiple conditions of the fraternity's CUP at 280 California Blvd. and exceeds the maximum
occupancy limit of 25 by 75 people, or four times the limit.
Condition 4 states that the maximum occupancy cannot exceed 25 people. It also states that a
transportation management plan is required for events that exceed 25 people.
2
Condition 9 states that the fraternity shall comply with the City's noise ordinance.
Condition 12 says that the permit may be revoked if the fraternity fails to comply with any of the conditions or
code requirements, or the conduct is a violation of the law, or constitutes a public nuisance or causes adverse
impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity.
During the Planning Commission hearing on 11/13/2024, there was significant discussion about Condition
12. Commissioners confirmed that a noise violation is a "public nuisance" according to the city's municipal
code. 9.12.010 defines a noise violation as a "public nuisance".
At the conclusion of the hearing, it was the understanding of the Commissioners that the fraternity would
return to the Planning Commission if there was a single violation of the noise ordinance.
Commissioner Tolle made the following comment:
At 1:17:24: Commissioner Tolle: "Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that the Applicant is aware that if another violation
occurs, you’re going to be right back in here and we’re going to have to do this all over again. I get it. I understand frat life.
But you’re in a neighborhood. You’re not out in a Greek Row. That’s what’s before us today. So I just want to make that
clear because I feel that the conditions aren’t that strict, as far as repercussions are concerned, so the only thing that we
can lean on is that you will be back here if it happens again."
In my email on 4/17/2025, I said that during the hearing on 11/13/2024, the Commissioners discussed the
terms of the CUP, and they warned the fraternity members that if the fraternity gets a single citation, the
Commissioners wanted the CUP to be revisited. I asked what action you would take regarding the matter.
You responded that you would review with Code Enforcement, look at the CUP, and the hearing record from
11/13/2024.
3
At the time of my email, the fraternity had only received one citation with 150 people. That event violated
multiple conditions of the CUP. After my email, the fraternity received the second citation with 100 people,
which also violated multiple conditions of the CUP.
I have not heard back from you.
Based on the multiple violations of the conditions of the CUP, I believe the fraternity should go back to the
Planning Commission, as was stated by the Commissioners on 11/13/2024. Would you please let me know
what actions have or are going to be taken to resolve this issue?
Thank you and have a great weekend.
-Kathie
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Friday, May 16, 2025 2:18 AM
To:E-mail Council Website; Advisory Bodies; Stewart, Erica A; Shoresman, Michelle; Francis, Emily;
Marx, Jan; Boswell, Mike
Cc:Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross; Carolyn Smith; Stewjenkins Info
Subject:Fraternity Reports: Parties on weekend 4/17-4/19/2024 & Kappa Sigma
Attachments:Kappa Sigma Fraternity at 281 Hathway Avenue.pdf; fraternity parties weekend of 4.17.2025 –
4.19.2025.pdf; 09_19_1989, 3 - U1449B_ APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
DENYING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FRATERNITY HOUSE.pdf
Dear City Council and Planning Commissioners:
I am frustrated that the City has not made more progress on shutting down illegal fraternity houses, including
the main chapter houses in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. Not a single Main Chapter Fraternity house operating
illegally in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods has been shut down since I reported them to the City, with
documentation, in 2023. Of Cal Poly's 19 fraternities, only six have CUPs, and those fraternities do not abide by
the terms of their CUPs. The other 13 fraternities are operating illegally, mostly in our neighborhood.
Most fraternities have multiple satellite houses that also host fraternity-related events.
On Wednesday, 5/14/2025, I sent extensive documentation regarding ongoing illegal fraternity events at Kappa
Sigma's main chapter house at 281 Hathway Avenue, including ongoing fraternity parties, and a report made on
5/9/2025 about a large inflatable waterslide in the driveway/backyard of 281 Hathway, which meant there would
likely be a party on Saturday 5/10/2025. I also attached a video of a different fraternity party at 281 Hathway
(cleared by SLOPD on 4/12/2025 as a "Negative Violation") and highly intoxicated fraternity members walking
past our house after the party was shut down by SLOPD on 4/12, with one guy identified by the other as Jackson
Lucas, who is a member of Kappa Sigma. The guys could barely walk because they were so drunk, and were
discussing the "Big-Little Night", the Greek event likely held that night at Kappa Sigma. The video showed the
loud chanting in the backyard.
Despite the documentation of the fraternity event on 5/10/2025, Code Enforcement officer Rami Salem
responded that he would not open a case against the property because he cannot prove the fraternity event
happened "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I believe the standard of proof for a code enforcement case is "a preponderance of the evidence," which means
it is more likely than not. It's a much lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is mostly reserved
for criminal cases, such as murder. It is a bit disconcerting that the code enforcement officer does not
understand the proof required to pursue a code enforcement case because that's literally his job. Please
correct me if I am misunderstanding the situation.
The photos I provided were posted by the fraternity on Instagram, showing the event in the backyard of 281
Hathway on 5/10/2025, and the post cites the fraternity event, with photos of it in progress in the backyard of
281 Hathway Avenue. It is unbelievable that the City is claiming a code enforcement case cannot be opened
when the violation is so obvious. How will we ever make progress to solve this problem and shut these
illegal fraternity houses down? 281 Hathway is the main chapter house for Kappa Sigma, and has been
operating there for several years. I have attached the email and report again for your reference. I hope you can
get to the bottom of this situation.
2
It's my understanding that the Conditional Use Permits for a few fraternities will be re-reviewed later this month,
so I wanted to provide some information related to the ongoing problems we experience in our neighborhood.
On the weekend of 4/17-4/19/2025, there were 18 separate calls to documented fraternity houses. After that
weekend, I started to put together a report, which I just finished and have attached to this email. I only included
each of the fraternity locations that received noise complaints during that weekend. Many other fraternities also
have noise complaints on any given weekend, but I narrowed my report to only the fraternities with noise
complaints for that weekend because it would be completely overwhelming to present information for every
fraternity at Cal Poly. It gives you a glimpse into what our neighborhoods endure every weekend.
I previously prepared a report in 2023 for every Cal Poly fraternity, which was over 100 pages, and gave it to
Timmi Tway and John Mezzapesa during a meeting on 11/3/2023, so some limited information from that report is
included in this report.
I also attached a case brought by the City of SLO against a fraternity operating without a CUP in 1989 on Foothill
Blvd. I referenced this case in my report, so I have attached it for your review. Within a short time after a
complaint was filed against an unpermitted fraternity, the City filed a case against the fraternity and resolved
the matter within a few months. It did not take years.
I realize it is a lot of information. Please keep in mind that behind every call to SLOPD is a person or people -
families - who need to sleep or have peace in their home, and are being disturbed by a noisy fraternity nearby. It
is not a normal situation. The number of fraternities in our neighborhood has exponentially increased since
2021, along with the noise, which has become unbearable. People have been driven out of their homes. There
have been several news articles about various families, including ours, and I wish the City would take the
problem seriously.
Thank you for taking the time to go through the reports, and I look forward to finding a solution to this horrible
problem so this nightmare will be over. We live a simple life and just want to have the peaceful enjoyment of our
property so we can rest.
Sincerely,
Kathie Walker
kathie walker < >
Kappa Sigma Fraternity at 281 Hathway Ave
kathie walker < >Wed, May 14, 2025 at 8:14 PM
To: "Tway, Timothea (Timmi)" <ttway@slocity.org>, "Mezzapesa, John" <JMezzape@slocity.org>, "Salem, Rami"
<RSalem@slocity.org>, E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Dear City Leadership,
On Friday, 5/9/2025, I reported a potential fraternity-related event at Kappa Sigma's Main Chapter House at 281 Hathway
Avenue. In my email, I said there was a large inflatable waterslide set up in the backyard, visible from the front of the
house, which likely meant there would be a dayge (or party) on Saturday, 5/10/2025.
Subsequently, the City opened a case to investigate the event through the AskSLO app. Today, I received notification that
the City was "unable to verify" a fraternity-related event happened at 281 Hathway Avenue on Saturday, 5/10/2025. A
screenshot of the email I received is below:
Also today, Kappa Sigma fraternity posted about its fraternity event held at 281 Hathway on Saturday, 5/10/2025. A direct
link to their post is here:https://www.instagram.com/p/DJpeFZFTHhN/?hl=en&img_index=1. Screenshots of the post are
below, including a photo of the inflatable waterslide I referenced in my email on Friday, 5/9/2025:
Gmail - Kappa Sigma Fraternity at 281 Hathway Ave
The fraternity seal on the back of the house at 281 Hathway and is visible in the group photo, above. I have also attached
documentation that shows Kappa Sigma has operated a fraternity at 281 Hathway Avenue for many years. My
documentation starts in Fall 2021, and the timeline continues to the present date.
I am curious about what the process is for the City to verify a violation when it is reported, and I don't understand why the
City was "unable to verify" this fraternity event.
The standard of proof for whether 281 Hathway Avenue is operating as a fraternity is a "preponderance of the evidence,"
which means it is more likely than not. The documentation provided, including the documents attached, far exceeds that
burden.
I have also attached a video of a party at 281 Hathway on 4/12/2025. SLOPD cleared the party with a "Negative
Violation". After the party was shut down by SLOPD, fraternity members walked past our house. Some were so
Gmail - Kappa Sigma Fraternity at 281 Hathway Ave
intoxicated that they had difficulty walking. The conversation between two fraternity members references a "Big-Little
Night" which is an event hosted by fraternities.
I am requesting that the City prosecute the property owner of 281 Hathway Avenue, which is zoned R-1, for ongoing
illegal fraternity operation under SLOMC Code SLOMC 17.02.030 and SLOMC 17.16.010, consistent with the case filed
against the fraternity operating illegally in 1989. That case was previously provided to the City, including the City Attorney,
in January. The property at 281 Hathway Avenue has been a nuisance for a very long time. The property owner and the
fraternity members know that it is illegal to operate a fraternity at the address, yet they continue to do so without
consequence. It is time to start taking the matter seriously and protect our neighborhood from the illegal fraternity
operations.
Please let me know if you need any other information.
Thank you,
Kathie Walker
4.12.2025 Kappa Sigma party 281 Hathway and
frat guys afterward .mp4
281 Hathway Avenue . Kappa Sigma Fraternity.pdf
8662K
Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org> Thu, May 15, 2025 at 9:19 AM
To: kathie walker < >, "Tway, Timothea (Timmi)" <TTway@slocity.org>, "Mezzapesa, John"
<JMezzape@slocity.org>, E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Cc: "Dietrick, Christine" <cdietric@slocity.org>, Sandra Rowley < , Carolyn Smith
< , Brett Cross < , Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < ,
Stewjenkins Info <
Good morning, Kathie! Thank you for taking the time and effort to send this email. I was unable to observe
any direct evidence (Greek letters, signage etc.) linking the house to a fraternity or an unsanctioned event
from the public right of way during business hours. Unfortunately, if I am not granted legal entry into the
property where I can personally observe tangible evidence that 281 Hathway hosted an unsanctioned event,
then I am unable to verify that such event took place.
To have preponderance of the evidence that an unsanctioned event took place at 281 Hathway is to assume
that the evidence presented is more likely to be true than not true. Unfortunately, I cannot proceed to create
a code case against 281 Hathway on mere preponderance of evidence. I do not know beyond a reasonable
doubt that the picture in the Instagram post has been taken at 281 Hathway. I have not been granted legal
entry into the property where I was able to observe or identify evidence that would inform me beyond a
reasonable doubt that the house has operated out of its designated zoning regulations in hosting an
unsanctioned event.
Thank you again for taking the time to reach out. Have a fantastic day and please let me know if there’s
anything I can do to help.
Gmail - Kappa Sigma Fraternity at 281 Hathway Ave
Kappa Sigma: Main Chapter House 281 Hathway Avenue
Satellite Houses 322 Hathway Avenue
108 Crandall Way
1990 McCollum Steet
1861 Hope Street
1142 Montalban
“New” frat house in the Fall of 2023: 293 Albert Drive
No longer operating as a fraternity:526 Kentucky Street
Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report (10/1/2023) identifying the addresses that Kappa Sigma held
events during the 2022-2023 academic year:
Most events for Kappa Sigma were held at 281 Hathway Avenue, according to
the AB 524 report. Some events were not listed on the report, such as Fall
rush events (see page 3).
1
Kappa Sigma Instagram post 10/3/2021 for Fall Rush events identify fraternity related events at
1646 Fredericks (now Zeta Beta Tau)and 108 Crandall Way.*
Fall 2021
*During this academic year (2021-2022) Kappa Sigma also had fraternity-related events at
281 Hathway Ave and 322 Hathway Avenue, including parties on 3/12/2022, “St. Fratty’s Day”.
Spring 2022
SLOPD log on 3/12/2022 “St. Fratty’s Day”. 281 Hathway was issued 3 citations incl.
unruly gathering. Citations were issued to fraternity members of Kappa Sigma.
2
Kappa Sigma Instagram, post 10/1/2022 for Fall Rush events identify fraternity-related events
at 281 Hathway Ave (Wednesday Oct 5th) and 322 Hathway Avenue (Thursday Oct. 6th)
Fall 2022:
Sigma Kappa events Wed 10/5/2022 and Thurs 10/6/2022 are not listed on Cal Poly’s AB 524
Report
Events
(10/5,
10/6 &
10/8)
should
be here
3
Spring 2023:
Photo taken at 281 Hathway Avenue
The Kappa Sigma fraternity emblem is mounted to the side of the house at
281 Hathway Avenue is still mounted on the rear of the house today, April 2025,
as shown on next page.
Kappa Sigma Instagram, post 4/16//2023 of executive committee posing in backyard of 281
Hathway, with fraternity emblem mounted on the back of the house.
4
St. Fratty’s Day, 281 Hathway Avenue, 3/18/2023
(above)
Also attended by Beta Theta Pi per its AB 524 Report
(right)
281 Hathway Avenue
281 1/2
Still photo from drone footage on 3/15/2025
5
Cal Poly fraternities hold an annual beer dye tournament in the Spring in the residential
neighborhood. In 2023, it was held at 281 Hathway Avenue (Kappa Sigma) and Alpha Sigma Phi
posted on Instagram that they won the tournament. Alpha Sigma Phi’s main chapter house is
illegally operating at 1218 Bond Street (R-1) and its “satellite house” at 299 Albert Drive (R-1).
Aerial photo of 281 Hathway
Beer dye table in backyard of 281
Hathway Avenue (above) and photo of
backyard (right) verifying location with
landmarks noted on both photos
“Brothers wait all year to compete in our annual dye
tournament and take home the belt…”
6
Fall 2023:
Photo taken at 281 Hathway Avenue
Front yard
Kappa Sigma Instagram, post 10/6/2023 with Rush Chairs in front of the Main Chapter House at 281
Hathway Avenue (top photo) and in the backyard of 281 Hathway Avenue (bottom photo).
Photo taken at 281 Hathway Avenue
Back yard
7
Winter 2024:
Kappa Sigma Instagram post 1/21/2024 for Winter Rush features photos of fraternity-related events held at
281 Hathway Avenue. The video posted also has video footage of events at 281 Hathway.
“Themed gathering” (above) taken in
backyard of 281 Hathway
Dayge in backyard of 281 Hathway
(left)
8
9
Spring 2024:
Kappa Sigma Instagram, post 4/7//2024 of executive committee posing in backyard of 281 Hathway, with
fraternity bench and Greek letters.
10
Article from Mustang News, 4/2/2024: https://mustangnews.net/st-frattys-recap/
Junior Owen Beim, fraternity member of the Kappa Sigma said the fraternity has two
fraternity houses on Hathway Ave. Kappa Sigma was planning to not host any events because
they knew the risks.
Beim lives in an apartment unit by Campus Bottle. He said he woke up at 6 a.m. because it was so
loud and walked outside. Both of the Kappa Sigma houses were flooded by people, according to
Beim. He went over to the house and stood in the front yard, trying to get people off of their front
lawn.
“We knew that the police were going to give unruly gathering tickets and noise tickets if they saw a
substantial amount of people in a front yard,” Beim said. “For the house I was at, the police were
helping us out a lot which was super kind of them because they knew we were trying to get people
out.”
At the other house, Kappa Sigma received a $700 dollar ticket, which Beim said was a
bummer but that he understood. They were considering appealing it because of the advice of a
police officer.
Note: There was a huge fraternity party at 281 Hathway on St. Fratty’s Day, 3/16/2024. A photo
from the backyard of 281 Hathway during the party is on the next page.
Winter 2025:
Spring 2024, continued:
Photo of party in the
backyard of 281 Hathway
Ave on 3/16/2024 in the
morning (right).
Kappa Sigma fraternity posted a photo of its fraternity bench with Greek letters is in the
backyard of 281 Hathway Avenue against the side fence (south) and is still in that location
today, April 2025, as shown on next page.11
Still photo from drone footage on 3/15/2025
12
The fraternity’s rush events were
published on physical “rush cards” and
handed out to potential new members at
a BBQ on Dexter Lawn on Thursday,
1/16/2025 from 4 – 7 p.m. with a SKU
for registration to receive the addresses
of the events.
In January 2025, the City and code
enforcement had met with Cal Poly and
given a presentation to the fraternities
about the City’s regulations and laws, so
for the first time ever, the addresses
were not published publicly (online)
because fraternities knew they are not
legally allowed to hold fraternity-related
events in R-1 and R-2 residential
neighborhoods. Instead of complying,
the fraternities held the events anyway
and hid the addresses from the public
and the city.
Code Enforcement officials responded to a complaint about the rush event on Friday afternoon,
1/17/2025 , but the fraternity members refused to answer the door. Code Enforcement officials
reported hearing voices in the backyard but did not cite the event because the fraternity
members did not answer the door. The complaint was dismissed as “unable to verify”.
Screenshot taken on 1/18/2025
January 18, 2025: Kappa Sigma posted photo of fraternity rush event “yesterday” 1/17/2025 from
3-5 p.m. in the backyard of 281 Hathway Avenue. (screenshot of post below)
13
March 4, 2025: Kappa Sigma posted photo of executive committee with Greek letters on fraternity
bench in the backyard of 281 Hathway Avenue.
14
Matt Hernandez is Kappa Sigma’s Grand Master, per Kappa Sigma’s Instagram post.
The Tribune reporterinterviewed fraternity members of Kappa Sigma, includingMatt Hernandez, and the
fraternity members admitted Kappa Sigma’s main chapter house is in an R-1 zone, and they have two
fraternity houses on Hathway. The interview took place at 281 Hathway Avenue.
Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report and my documentation provided to the City on 11/8/2023 identify that Kappa
Sigma’s main chapter house at 281 Hathway, an R-1 zone, and its satellite fraternity house at 322 Hathway,
an R-2 zone.
From the Tribune article:
“Members of Kappa Sigma told The Tribune that their house — located in the lowest-density (R-1) zoning
area — has hosted parties and rush events over the past year, but they said they haven’t hosted any events
within the last two months.
[The fraternity members failed to tell the reporter that Kappa Sigma was on academic probation for the past
two months, therefore was not allowed to have events.]
“In the past, yes, we have,” said Matt Hernandez, a resident of the house.
“Last year we lived on Stenner Street, and that was a lot different,” another resident said. “It was a lot more
families and people that didn’t prefer a fraternity living next to them. That was definitely a lot more of a
challenge to have social events. ... We definitely could have probably made more of an effort to be a little
quieter, but on Hathway it’s a lot more chill.”
15
16
The history does not include the noise complaints at 281 ½ Hathway, an ADU on the same
property with a shared backyard where the fraternity hosts events. It is eligible for DACs and
citations separate from the main house at 281 Hathway, even though both properties are
occupied by Kapps Sigma fraternity members and host fraternity-related events there. The
address was included in a previous records request made for my report given to the City on
11/8/2023, below:
Noise citation on 4/26/2025 at 281 Hathway shows 100 people at the party. Citation was issued to
Ryan Fallon and he is identified on social media as a member of Kappa Sigma:
SLOPD history of noise calls at 281 Hathway not including the Citation on 4/26/2025, above:
Fall 2024 to
present
(2024-2025)
academic year
2023-2024
academic year
2022-2023
academic year
The portion of the report I submitted in 2023 related to Kappa Sigma is on the following 4 pages.
Friday, May 9, 2025, an email was sent to Community Development regarding probably party at
281 Hathway Avenue on Saturday, May 10, 2025, which said:
“…There is a huge inflatable water slide right now in the backyard of 281 Hathway which
may be for a dayge tomorrow… it seems there will be a fraternity event at 281 Hathway this
weekend. The fraternity does not currently have a fence across its driveway, but will put one
up when they start their party, so the event is not visible to the public or law enforcement.”
Indeed, a fence was put up across the driveway on Saturday, May 10,2025 and Kappa Sigma held
an event in its backyard.
On Tuesday, May 13, 2025, I received a notification that a code violation was submitted via the
AskSLO app, Ask SLO New Request # 11780. A screenshot of the email is below:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2025, I received a notification that the City was “unable to verify” a code
violation, or that the fraternity had held an event at 281 Hathway Ave on Saturday, May 10. 2025.
However, the fraternity did hold an event all day at 281 Hathway Ave on Saturday, May 10.2025.
On Wednesday, May 14, 2025, Kappa Sigma posted the event, with photos from the backyard of
281 Hathway Avenue, on its Instagram page. The post said:
“Our annual Kappa Sigma Parents Weekend was one for the books.A huge thank you to all
the parents and families that came into town last weekend! We had such a blast spending a
few days with you guys! Also a huge shoutout to @joe_croney for organizing an amanzing
weekend. Would not have been possible without you!!!”
281 Hathway Ave is a residential home with an ADU in a single-family residential
neighborhood zoned R-1. It is illegal for fraternities to host fraternity-related events at that
address. Cal Poly and the fraternity members are aware of the law.
Kappa Sigma’s Instagram post referencing fraternity event on the weekend of May 10-11, 2025.
Photos show event in the backyard of 281 Hathway Avenue, including inflatable waterslide
referenced in my email on May 9, 2025,
Why was the City “unable to verify” this event?
The standard of proof for whether 281 Hathway Ave is operating as a
fraternity is a “preponderance of the evidence” which means IT IS
MORE LIKELY THAN NOT. The documentation exceeds that burden.
1
Neighborhood map with locations of noise complaints to SLOPD 4/17-4/19/2025 .…..........2
Date of SLOPD Response: 4/17/2025:
Delta Sigma Phi 1688 Mill Street R2 ……………………………………………… 3 - 4
Phi Sigma Kappa 1908 Loomis R1 …………………………………………….… 5 - 6
Zeta Beta Tau 1646 Fredericks R1 …………………………………………..……… 7
Sigma Nu 1541 Slack St R1 …………………………………………..….……8
Date of SLOPD Response: 4/18/2025:
Phi Sigma Kappa 348 Hathway Ave R2 .................................................... 9 - 10
Theta Chi 1238 Foothill Blvd R4 …………………………............................ 11
Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista (CUP) R4 ………………………………..……….………..12
Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd (CUP) R4 ……………………..…………………..…13 - 14
Sigma Pi 1555 Slack St R1 …………………………..………………..15 - 16
Phi Gamma Delta 1229 Fredericks R2 ………………..…………………………..17 - 18
Theta Chi 250 Grand Ave R1 …………………………………………….19 - 21
Theta Chi 1844 McCollum (4/19) R1 ..……………………………………………….. 22
Theta Chi 1844 McCollum R1 ..……………………………………………….. 23
Date of SLOPD Response: 4/19/2025:
Beta Theta Pi 1327 Foothill R4 ..……………………………………….... 24 - 25
Phi Sigma Kappa 348 Hathway Ave R2 ………………………………….………... 26
Phi Kappa Psi 1271 Stafford St R2 ………………………………….….. 27 - 29
Sigma Nu 1304 Foothill (CUP) R4 …………………………….……….. 30 - 31
Zeta Beta Tau 654 Graves Ave R4 ………………………………….….. 32 – 34
Summary and Proposed Solutions …………………………...…………………………….…… 35
18 calls to SLOPD for noisy parties at fraternities during the weekend of 4/17 – 4/19/2025
and history of noise complaints at those addresses
2
The number inside the red circles is the number of people listed on the DAC or citation at each party
which is self-reported by the party host. SLOPD and SNAP do not count the number of people at a
gathering. They generally ask the person being cited how many are at the event.
Often the number of people listed does not correlate with the noise generated. Video of parties at
1327 Foothill and 1271 Stafford that day (4/18), listed as 30 people and 25 people, respectively, but
could be heard from blocks away. The fraternity at 1271 Stafford used a tarp to block the view to the
backyard where they had an inflatable water slide. In addition to the people in the backyard, at least
20 people were on the roof, and others in the courtyard. There were far more than 25 people.
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties at known-fraternities Thurs – Sat, 4/17 – 4/19/2025.
Fraternity-related events are registered beforehand with Cal Poly Greek Life
staff/administration. Events are “sanctioned” and approved by Cal Poly. Cal Poly
administration knows it is illegal for these events to occur in R-1 and R-2
neighborhoods. Code Enforcement staff met with Cal Poly staff regarding the issue in
early 2024, but Cal Poly staff and administration continue to allow fraternities to
register fraternity-related events at illegal locations, causing severe disruption for
those who live in the neighborhood. City staff has also met with fraternity leadership
and members to make them aware of the laws that prohibit fraternity-related events
in the neighborhood, but they continue to hold the events anyway.
DELTA SIGMA PHI – Main Chapter House, R-2 residential zone, NOT LEGAL
3
•Oliver Tostado is shown as a fraternity member on the fraternity’s Instagram page.
•The property at 1684 / 1688 Mill Street (same APN) was reported to the City as an illegal fraternity
operation in an R-2 zone since Fall 2024.
Events on 10/4 & 10/6/2024 at 1684 Mill St
reported to Code Enforcement on 10/1/2024
but the City found no violation, even though
the events happened at the exact date, time
and address reported beforehand.
“DON’T MISS THE HOT DOG
EATING CONTEST AT 7:00
1684 MILL ST”
4
Delta Sigma Phi has operated its Main Chapter House at 1684/1688 Mill since 2023 and continues
to host fraternity-related events at that property to the present date (May 2025).
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties (NSPY) are below:
•Fraternities with permits are not eligible for a zero-fine or “free” Disturbance Advisement Card
(DAC), however illegal fraternities receive DACs. Multiple addresses on same receive separate DACs
for each address, lessening the consequences to the fraternity. (See DACs in red boxes above)
•City policy does not dispatch student officers (SNAP) to fraternity houses. It appears Community
Development and SLOPD have not coordinated about fraternity house locations because SNAP
continues to be dispatched to houses known by the City to be operating as fraternities.
•SLOPD seems unaware of fraternity locations when noise is reported in the immediate area of a
fraternity house. An example is below for noise complaints made 1 minute apart in area of fraternity:
12/06/2024 at 21:05 caller reported “loud males yelling and
partying” at Phillips and Park, behind Delta Sigma Phi’s
fraternity house at 1684/1688 Mill. SNAP was “Unable to
Locate” the noise.
12/06/2024 at 21:06 caller reported “loud music” at Delta
Sigma Phi’s fraternity house at 1684 Mill. On 11/14/2025, the
property received a DAC which means the property is on a
‘No Warning’ list for nine months and requires response
from a SLOPD officer. However, SNAP was dispatched 3
weeks later on 12/06/2025.
•SNAP officers cannot issue noise citations.
•The party was cleared 8 minutes after SNAP arrived which
indicates there was likely contact with the party hosts.
Typically, parties not in violation are cleared within 2-3
minutes because there is little to no contact when there is
not a noise violation observed.
Fall 2024 to
present
SNAP
SNAP
SNAP
SNAP
SNAP
SNAP
SNAP
SNAP
(2024-2025
academic year)
PHI SIGMA KAPPA – R-1 residential zone, NOT LEGAL
5
•Elias Romero is the president of Phi Sigma Kappa and is also the VP of Scholarship for the
Interfraternity Council.
•The property at 1908 Loomis was reported to the City as an illegal fraternity operation in an R-1 zone
since Fall 2023.
•The property at 1908 Loomis was identified by Phi Sigma Kappa in its AB 524 Report before Cal Poly
erased all the addresses in the AB 524 Reports.
•AB 524 went into effect in 2022 and requires all colleges and universities in California to publish the
addresses of its fraternity events in a prominent place online on the university’s Greek Life page or
before October 1st, for the previous academic year, with the first report due on 10/1/2023. Reports
are kept online for a minimum of 10 years.
•Cal Poly posted the addresses of all fraternity events for each of its fraternities online on 10/1/2023.
Kappa Sigma listed 1908 Loomis Street in its report, shown below.
•In July 2024, Cal Poly erased the addresses of all fraternity events in each of its fraternities AB 524
Report, after San Luis Obispo Code Enforcement notified Greek Life administration/staff that it is
illegal to host events in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. The City began sending Notices of Violation
and Advisory Letters to property owners in March 2024. This reportedly caused some backlash from
property owners, who contacted Cal Poly after receiving the letters from the City, and Cal Poly staff
erased the addresses from its Report online, replacing the addresses with “San Luis Obispo”.
Phi Sigma Kappa’s AB 524
Report posted 10/1/2023 lists
1908 Loomis Street
(left)
Assembly Bill 524: The Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act (AB 524)
Phi Sigma Kappa does not have a legal, permitted fraternity house. It mostly
operates at 348/350 Hathway (R-2) and 1908 Loomis (R-1).
6
Fall Rush 2023
“CASINO NIGHT”
1908 Loomis St
Fall Rush 2024
Saturday Oct 5
“POOL & POKER”
1908 Loomis St
“Casino Royale” event at 1908 Loomis, 1/19/2025 @ 3 PM
Fraternity members are seen checking in potential new
members from laptop on front porch. SLO Code
Enforcement was “unable to verify” the fraternity event.
Winter Rush 2025
1/19/2025, 3-5 PM
“Casino Royale”
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties at 1908 Loomis:
SNAP
SNAP
ZETA BETA TAU – R-1 residential zone, NOT LEGAL
7
•Dylan Daniel is the Director of Operations for Zeta Beta Tau.
•The property at 1646 Fredericks was reported to the City as an illegal fraternity operation in an R-1
zone in Fall 2024.
1646 Fredericks Street has operated as a fraternity for at least four years. Previously, Kappa Sigma
occupied the property, but Zeta Beta Tau members moved in for the 2024-2025 academic year and
began hosting fraternity-related events there.
Code Enforcement indicated the property owner of 1646 Fredericks was issued a Notice of
Violation (NOV) after a rush event on 10/6/2024 for illegal fraternity operation in an R-1 residential
zone. Despite the NOV, the fraternity continues to operate as a fraternity, hosting fraternity-
related events.
On 11/14/2024, Zeta Beta Tau held a large, noisy Christmas-themed party “exchange” with a sorority.
There was a party tent and DJ in the backyard at 1646 Fredericks Street. SNAP responded and issued a
DAC. It appears Community Development did not share the address with SLOPD after the NOV
identified the address as an illegal fraternity, which should have mandated a response from a SLOPD
officer instead of SNAP, with a citation instead of a DAC.
The fraternity continues to host fraternity events at 1646 Fredericks Street.
The property was issued a noise citation on 4/17/2025 for a large fraternity party with 150 people
listed on the citation.
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties at 1646 Fredericks this academic year:
SNAP
SIGMA NU – R-1 residential zone, NOT LEGAL
•Vincent Matesso is a member of Sigma Nu’s IM sports team roster and on Instagram.
•The property at 1541 Slack was reported to the City as an illegal fraternity operation in an R-1 zone
since Winter 2024.
Fall 2024
to present
(2024-2025)
academic
year
1541 Slack - Google maps
Sigma Nu posted photo of “established houses” on Instagram, including 1541 Slack St. (below)
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties at 1541 Slack (NSPY) are below:
1541 Slack
SNAP
SNAP
8
PHI SIGMA KAPPA – Main Chapter House, R-2 zone, NOT LEGAL
9
•The property at 348 / 350 Hathway (same APN) was been
reported to the City as an illegal fraternity operation in an R-2
zone in Fall 2023.
•Videos of noisy fraternity parties at 348 Hathway (cleared by
SLOPD as negative violations) were sent to the City/SLOPD
since Fall 2021.
•348/350 Hathway has operated as an illegal fraternity since
2008 or sooner.
•Historically known as “the Pink House” the annual “St. Fratty’s
Day” event was founded at 348 Hathway in March 2009,
according to a report published by Cal Poly after a roof
collapsed nearby on St. Fratty’s Day in March 2015.
•Despite the City and SLOPD’s awareness that 348/350 Hathway
is an illegal fraternity, it was not cited by the City even after
substantial documentation in a report was provided to
Community Development on 11/8/2023, and the AB 524 Report,
shown below.
Phi Sigma Kappa listed 348 and 350 Hathway in its AB 524 Report published on 10/1/2023, below:
The call was cleared as “Negative Violation”, but video of the party shows it was very loud, and a violation of the City’s noise ordinance.
Phi Sigma Kappa’s Main Fraternity House is shown as
348 Hathway on Instagram (right)
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties (NSPY) at 348 & 350 Hathway are below:
The property owner had the citation history wiped clean through SLOPD’s “Early Removal Program”
during summer 2024. Fraternities are not eligible for the Early Removal Program.
SLOPD is aware that 348 Hathway is an unpermitted fraternity yet approved the application to clear
the citation history and re-start the financial consequences of the fraternity. The property became
eligible for a “free” DAC, then increasing fines for noise citations starting over with a 1st citation
($350) rather than the $1000 citations then-incurred by the fraternity and property owner:
•1st noise citation - $350
•2nd noise citation within 9 months of 1st citation- $700
•3rd noise citation within 9 months of 2nd and subsequent citations- $1000, within 9 months of the most
recent citation.
•Fines are issued to both the tenants and the property owner.
The tenants and property owners were paying $1,000 each for citations when the citation history was
cleared by SLOPD. At the time of the Early Removal application & approval, the most recent citation
was on 05/18/2024 which means the property was on the No Warning list until 02/18/2025, and
citations within that time would be $1,000 for the tenants and property owner. Early Removal allowed
the property immediate eligibility for a zero-fine DAC and re-started the citation fine structure.
Within a month of the beginning the fall quarter, on 9/10/2024, the property was issued a DAC. One month
later, on 10/12/2024, the property was issued ANOTHER DAC. Less than a month later, on 11/1/2024, the
fraternity was issued a $350 noise citation.
SLOPD’s Early Removal Program allowed the fraternity and the property owner to avoid $1,000 citations
each on 9/10/2024 ($1,000 x 2 – one to tenants and one to property owner), 10/12/2024 ($1,000 x 2), and
11/01/2024 ($1,000 x 2) or a total of $6,000, minus the $350 citation on 11/1/2024 = total savings of $5,650
for the fraternity members & property owner based on “Early Removal” from SLOPD’s No Warning list.
Fall 2024 to present
2024-2025
academic year
2023-2024 academic year
RF=Report Filed by
SLOPD (likely an
unruly gathering)
SNAP
SNAP
**A DAC citation places property on SLOPD “No Warning” list with an automatic response from SLOPD, not SNAP,
for subsequent noise complaints within 9 months of the most recent DAC or Citation.
On 09/10/2024 SNAP issued a DAC. One month later, 10/12/2024, SNAP was dispatched again instead of SLOPD
and a second DAC issued. SLOPD should have been dispatched and issued a citation which has a monetary fine.
10
SNAP **not DAC eligible
THETA CHI – R-4 zone, NOT LEGAL, No Permit
11
Theta Chi does not have a legal, permitted fraternity house. It mostly operates
from 1820 Hope (R-1), 248/250 Grand (R-1), 496 Kentucky/1350 Stafford, (R-2, same
APN for both addresses), 1661 McCollum (R-1).
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties (NSPY) at 1238 Foothill are below:
•The property at 1238 Foothill was reported to the City as an illegal fraternity operation without a
Conditional Use Permit in an R-4 zone since Fall 2023.
•The property at 1238 Foothill was identified by Theta Chi in its AB 524 Report, as shown below.
•SLO Code Enforcement sent an Advisory Letter in early 2024 to the property owner for illegal
fraternity operations.
*A DAC places the property on “No Warning” list with subsequent responses from SLOPD (not SNAP) and citation
for noise violations within 9 months.
•A citation was issued 05/27/2023 (underlined in red) therefore property is on SLOPD’s “No Warning” list for 9
months, or until 02/27/2024. SLOPD is dispatched to “No Warning” properties.
•SNAP was dispatched on 01/20/2024 (underlined in green) and again on 02/17/2024 (underlined in green), prior to
the 9 month No Warning window. The DAC issued by SNAP on 02/17/2024 should have been a citation by SLOPD –
it was less than 9 months since previous citation on 5/27/2023.
SNAP
SNAP but not DAC eligible*
SNAP but not DAC eligible*
DELTA CHI – Conditional Use Permit, R-4 zone
12
•The property at 1236 Monte Vista Pl has had a Conditional Use Permit since August 1998.
•The maximum occupancy on site is 53 people. (CUP Item #4)
•The fraternity must comply with all laws, including the noise ordinance. (CUP Item #12)
On 3/15/2025, the fraternity was cited for a noisy party at 4:21 AM with 100 people.
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties (NSPY) at 1236 Monte Vista Place are below:
Fall 2024 to
present
(2024-2025)
academic year
2023-2024
academic year
ALPHA EPSILON PI – Conditional Use Permit, R-4 zone
13
•The property 280 California had a re-review of its Conditional Use Permit by the Planning
Commission on November 13, 2024.
•The maximum occupancy on site is 25 people. (Condition 4)
•The fraternity shall comply with the Noise Ordinance (Condition 9)
•The fraternity must comply with all laws or permit may be revoked. (Condition 12)
•On 4/18/2025 the fraternity was issued a noise citation for a noisy party with 100 people. The
citation constitutes three violations of the fraternity’s CUP: A violation of the noise ordinance
(Condition 4), the occupancy limitation (Condition 9), and SLO Muni Code 9.12.010, the noise
ordinance, which is considered a public nuisance. (Condition 12).
•On 4/16/2025 the fraternity was issued a noise citation for a noisy party with 150 people, in
violation of Conditions 4, 9 and 12 of the fraternity’s CUP.
14
At 1:03:41: Commissioner Houghton: I’m looking at condition twelve, which is the one that I read. It says,
“failure to comply with any of the above conditions may constitute grounds for revocation”. So doesn’t that
give us a hammer?
Chair Cooley: Only those that rise to a level of a public nuisance, is what it says.
Commissioner Houghton: Is that a different standard? Or to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or
welfare of persons in the vicinity of the use. That seems like a one strike, you’re out. Or a one strike, you may
be out. …
At 1:05:08: I’m just wondering how strong of a condition that is. Public nuisance. There’s an actual legal
definition for that. Is that right, Markie?
City Attorney Markie Kersten: I’m pulling up our code right now. …
Chair Cooley: So there are some standards that result in instant – for the permit, but we don’t know precisely
what those are tonight? Do I have that correct? That there is some level of infraction that could - -
City Attorney Kersten Yes, there are some things in the code that are designated as public nuisances. So my
guess is that condition, what is meant by that is if these certain activities occur that are designated in our code
as public nuisances, that one thing alone could bring them back to Planning Commission for re-review. But all
of the code sections that say something is a public nuisance I don’t have identified. If there’s specific type of
conduct you’re concerned about I’m happy to look that up.
Commissioner Tolle: Is a noise violation a public nuisance?
City Attorney Markie Kersten : I will look that up…
Deputy CDD Tyler Corey: I just had a follow up clarification, on the question around condition number twelve, I
think what this does is it sets the stage for what could constitute grounds for revocation, right? So looking at
public nuisance, health, safety, welfare, that does include noise, vibration and those type of activities. If there
were three violations, let’s say they were all noise or one of them was noise, it triggered a re-review by the
Planning Commission, this is just setting up that that could constitute grounds for the Planning Commission
to revoke the permit.
Commissioner Houghton: It’s right there. ‘Failure to comply with ANY of the above conditions” and then
everything is just or, or this, or that. And that’s what we are looking at right now is failure to comply with
condition two.
At 1:17:24: Commissioner Tolle: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that the Applicant is aware that if
another violation occurs, you’re going to be right back in here and we’re going to have to do this all over
again. I get it. I understand frat life. But you’re in a neighborhood. You’re not out in a Greek Row. That’s
what’s before us today. So I just want to make that clear because I feel that the conditions aren’t that
strict, as far as repercussions are concerned, so the only thing that we can lean on is that you will be
back here if it happens again.
During the Planning Commission Hearing on 11/13/2024, Commissioners discussed the conditions of
the CUP for 280 California Blvd not being consequential enough and that the fraternity could have
three more noise citations before the CUP is brought back to the Planning Commission, which did not
seem fair to the neighborhood. They concluded, based on Condition 12, the CUP would be brought
back to the Planning Commission for re-review if the fraternity received a single noise citation, which
is considered a “public nuisance” according to the City’s Noise Ordinance outlined in SLOMC
9.12.010 B.
A partial transcript from the Planning Commission is below:
SIGMA PI – R-1 residential zone, NOT LEGAL
15
•Kai Stout is a member of Sigma Pi’s IM team roster and is featured on Sigma Pi’s Instagram.
•The property at 1555 Slack was reported to the City as an illegal fraternity operation in an R-1 zone
since Fall 2023.
Prior to this academic year (2024-2025), Delta Upsilon fraternity operated at 1555 Slack Street.
Beginning in Fall 2024, Sigma Pi fraternity began operating at 1555 Slack Street, including hosting
rush recruitment and other fraternity-related events at the location.
1555 Slack Street was listed in Delta Upsilon’s AB 524 Report before Cal Poly erased all the
addresses. A portion of that report is shown below. An Instagram post advertised the event on Friday,
May 12th at 1555 Slack St. (below right).
Sigma Pi began hosting fraternity-related events at 1555 Slack in Fall 2024.
Sigma Pi does not have a permitted fraternity house. It mostly operates at 1525
Slack, 1555 Slack, and 124 Stenner.
16
1/17/2025: 1555 Slack Street
(see photo below from 1/17/25 @ 7 pm)
1/18/2025: 1525 Slack Street
1/19/2025: 1555 Slack Street
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties (NSPY) at 1555 Slack are below:
Gathering of guys in backyard at 1555 Slack on 1/17/2025 at 7 PM
1555 Slack St
1/17/2025, 7 PM, Table set up with laptops for
checking in potential new members during
rush recruitment
1555 Slack St – Google Maps
Winter Rush 2025
1555 Slack, 1/17/2025 at 7:10 PM
Photos show Sigma Pi fraternity members
checking in potential new members at table
in front yard and large gathering of guys in
the backyard on 1/17/2025.
SNAP
This event (and others in illegal locations)
were registered and approved by Cal Poly
Greek Life administration beforehand,
despite knowing that these events are
illegal in the city of San Luis Obispo.
PHI GAMMA DELTA – Main Chapter House, R-2 residential zone, NOT LEGAL
17
•Aiden Hogan is a fraternity member of Phi Gamma Delta or “FIJI” per his LinkedIn profile.
•The property at 1229 Fredericks Street was reported to the City as an illegal fraternity operation in
an R-2 zone since Fall 2023.
•Phi Gamma Delta/FIJI named the fraternity house “The Cabin” on Google Maps and advertises
fraternity events at “The Cabin” at 1229 Fredericks St.
On March 5, 2024, the property owner, David Scarry Trust, was issued a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operation at 1229 Fredericks Street by SLO City Code Enforcement. (below)
Despite the NOV, the property at 1229 Fredericks continues to operate as a fraternity.
18
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties (NSPY) at 1229 Fredericks are below:
*A DAC places the property on “No Warning” list for 9 months, with subsequent responses from SLOPD (not SNAP)
and a citation issued for noise violations within 9 months from the most recent DAC or citation.
•A citation was issued 10/21/2023 (underlined in red) therefore property is on SLOPD’s “No Warning” list for 9
months, or until 07/21/2024 but SNAP was dispatched on 01/26/2024 (underlined in green), only 5 months after
the citation.
•Another citation was issued on 09/27/2024 (underlined in red) , so the property is on SLOPD’s “No Warning” list
until 6/27/2025 but SNAP was dispatched on 11/15/2024 (underlined in green), , and again on 04/18/2025
(underlined in green), . Each should have been a response from SLOPD.
•A DAC was issued on 04/18/2025 when it should have been a $700 citation from SLOPD since the previous citation
($350 for 1st citation) was less than 9 months earlier.
SNAP
SNAP – but not DAC eligible*
SNAP
SNAP – but not DAC eligible*
Two months after the City sent a Notice of Violation to the property owner for operating an illegal fraternity,
Phi Gamma Delta hosted a concert with DJs on May 31, 2024 (below left).
Rush recruitment in October 2024 (below right), and ongoing fraternity-related events including sorority
“exchanges” or parties hosting specific sororities continue at 1229 Fredericks Street through the present.
Phi Gamma Delta does not have a permitted fraternity house. It mostly operates
at its Main Chapter House at 1229 Fredericks Street (R-2).
It is City policy to dispatch SLOPD to fraternity houses instead of SNAP officers. SNAP is sometimes dispatched
to noise complaints at documented fraternities instead of SLOPD, even though SNAP does not respond to
fraternities per City policy. It’s unclear why Community Development and SLOPD have not resolved this issue.
19
•Harrison Gries is the Vice President of Theta Chi according to Theta Chi’s Instagram page.
•The property at 250 Grand Ave was reported to the City as an illegal fraternity operation in an R-1
zone since Fall 2023.
THETA CHI – R-1 residential zone, NOT LEGAL
Prior to this academic year (2024-2025), Sigma Nu fraternity operated at 248/250 Grand. Beginning
in Fall 2024, Theta Chi fraternity began operating at 248/250 Grand Ave, including hosting rush
recruitment and other fraternity-related events at the location.
250 Grand Ave was listed in Sigma Nu’s AB 524 Report before Cal Poly erased all the addresses
from its fraternities’ AB 524 Reports in July 2024. The full report is shown on the next page.
The property owner of 250 Grand, Eric Williams Trust, received a Notice of Violation for illegal
fraternity operations from San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, shown on
the next page. The property has continued to operate as a fraternity to the present date, May 2025.
Theta Chi does not have a permitted fraternity house. It mostly operates from
1820 Hope (R-1), 248/250 Grand (R-1), 496 Kentucky/1350 Stafford, (same APN in R-
2), 1844 McCollum (R-1).
20
Community Development sent a Notice of Violation to Eric Williams Trust, the property owner of 250
Grand Ave, on March 5, 2024 (shown below). The property continues to operate as a fraternity.
•250 Grand (and 248 Grand) was identified as a fraternity for Sigma Nu during the 2022-2023 academic
year, per its AB 524 Report published by Cal Poly Greek administration online, below.
•250 Grand became a fraternity house for Theta Chi in August 2024. Theta Chi held rush events and other
fraternity-related parties at 248/250 Grand since Fall 2024.
21
Theta Chi held a “Tri Tip” event on 1/17/2025
from 7-9 PM at 250 Grand Ave (Instagram
post, above).
Photos taken in the backyard at 250 Grand
Ave were posted by Theta Chi on Instagram
(right). Distinguishable landmarks visible in
the photos, like the red fence (left photo) and
pink garage (right photo)
Fall 2024 to
present
2024-2025
2023-2024
academic
year
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties (NSPY) at 248 & 250 Grand are below:
*DAC places the property on “No Warning” list with subsequent responses from SLOPD (not SNAP) and citations
issued for noise violations within 9 months of the most recent citation.
•A citation was issued 06/03/2023 (underlined in red, above) therefore property is on SLOPD’s “No Warning” list
for 9 months, or until 03/03/2024 but SNAP responded on 02/09/2024 (underlined in green) and issued a DAC
when it should have been a citation from SLOPD.
•Another citation was issued on 06/07/2024 (underlined in red), so the property is on SLOPD’s “No Warning” list
until 03/07/2025 but SNAP responded on 10/09/2024 and issued a DAC (underlined in green). It should have
been a citation from SLOPD.
SNAP – but not eligible for a DAC*
Every rush event held by Theta Chi - Friday 1/17/2025, Saturday 1/18/2025, and Sunday 1/18/2025
- was held at an illegal fraternity house in an R-1 or R-2 neighborhood. All three properties
previously received Notices of Violation from the City for illegal fraternity operations but
continue to operate, disrupting the neighborhood without any meaningful consequences.
250 / 248 Grand Ave
1820 Hope St
496 Kentucky Ave / 1350 Stafford St
SNAP – but not eligible
for a DAC
22
THETA CHI – R-1 residential zone, NOT LEGAL
•Matthew Hanley is the Social Events Manager of Theta Chi according to Theta Chi’s Instagram page.
•The citation notes guards with walkie talkies are telling each other when law enforcement (LE) gets
near, presumably to stop the noise before officers can witness the noise to issue a citation.
•It is common for fraternities to have “guards” with walkie talkies at the front door during parties.
This sometimes make it difficult for SLOPD to cite noisy parties, unless they sneak up on the house.
(A common offender that is nearly impossible to cite is the illegal fraternity at 2090 Hays Street
because the house is on a hill at the end of a street, so hosts can see police before they arrive.)
1844 McCollum (pink house, below) connects with
248 & 250 Grand Ave at the rear of the property. Both
properties are Theta Chi fraternity houses operating
in an R-1 residential neighborhood. An aerial view of
the properties shows where the properties share a
boundary (right). The boundary is not fenced.
23
THETA CHI – R-1 residential zone, NOT LEGAL
•Joseph “Joey” Lederer is listed as a teammate on Theta Chi’s IM team roster.
The pink garage shown in some of the
photos posted by Theta Chi on social media,
is at 1844 McCollum, like the photo inset on
the left posted on 4/27/2025 of a “Moms
Weekend” fraternity event last month.
250 Grand Ave
1844
McCollum
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties (NSPY) at 1844 McCollum are below:
SNAP
SNAP
BETA THETA PI – Main Chapter House, R-4 NOT LEGAL, No Permit
24
Beta Theta Pi does not have a permitted fraternity house. It is identified in
SLOPD’s database as a fraternity but does not have a Conditional Use Permit to
operate at its location at 1327 Foothill Blvd or any other address within the City.
•Most fraternity events for Beta Theta Pi are held at 1327 Foothill Blvd, per its AB 524 Report published by
Cal Poly Greek administration online, below.
•The fraternity also held events at 1220 Fredericks (R-2), 68 Chorro (R-1) and 556 Hathway (R-2). The
event listed at 281 Hathway Avenue on 3/18/2023 is a St. Fratty’s Day event at Kappa Sigma’s main
chapter house at 281 Hathway (R-1).
25
Beta Theta Pi at 1327 Foothill Blvd is one of the top 3 worst offenders for noisy parties in the
neighborhood, and parties at the fraternity can be often be heard from several blocks away.
•On 5/25/2024, the fraternity refused to stop its noisy fraternity party after SLOPD responded
multiple times. Ater the 3rd call, officers called their sergeant to respond to the scene and shut
down the party, which was issued an unruly gathering citation. The party lasted for several hours.
•Approximately two weeks later, on 6/8/2024, the fraternity was issued another citation for a noisy
party.
•8 citations were issued to 1327 Foothill Blvd during the 2023-2024 academic year.
•5 citations have been issued to 1327 Foothill Blvd so far during this academic year, 2024-2025.
Community Development sent a Notice of Violation to the property owner of 1327 E. Foothill Blvd,
Keith Sweeney, dba Woolin One LLC (shown below). The property continues to operate as a fraternity.
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties at 1327 Foothill are below:
Fall 2024 to
present
(2024-2025)
2023-2024
academic
year
PHI SIGMA KAPPA – Main Chapter House, R-2 residential zone, NOT LEGAL
26
January 17, 2025 – Winter rush recruitment event at 348 Hathway (above)
Phi Sigma Kappa does not have a permitted fraternity house. It mostly operates from
348/350 Hathway Avenue and 1908 Loomis Street.
See pages 9-10 of this report for more information and extensive history of noisy parties.
This illegal fraternity house is the #1 worst offender in the neighborhood and the City
has not held it accountable.
Phi Sigma Kappa published photos of parties in the backyard of
348/350 Hathway during rush to recruit new fraternity members.
One photo is shown below.
PHI KAPPA PSI – R-2 residential zone, NOT LEGAL
27
•Graham Gould is identified as a fraternity member of Phi Kappa Psi on social media.
•The property at 1271 Stafford (and the other houses on the parcel, including 1273 Stafford and 1275
Stafford) was reported to the City as an illegal fraternity operation in an R-2 zone since Fall 2023.
These photos were included in a report
submitted to Community Development on
11/8/2023 showing fraternity letters and
centralized courtyard between the three
houses where fraternity events are held.
28
The City and SLOPD failed to recognize the property as an illegal fraternity after a report was
given to Community Development on 11/8/2023. Therefore, additional documentation, including
the photos below, were sent to the City in 2024. It does not appear the City has made any contact with
the fraternity or property owner about the illegal fraternity operation at this address.
29
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties at 1271, 1273 and 1275 A & B Stafford are below:
SNAP – Not DAC eligible*
SNAP
SNAPSNAP
*Issuance of a DAC places the property on “No Warning” list with subsequent responses from SLOPD (not SNAP)
and citations issued for noise violations within 9 months of the most recent citation.
*A citation was issued to 1271 Stafford on 04/27/2024 (underlined in red, above) and property is on SLOPD’s “No
Warning” list for 9 months, or until 01/27/2025 but SNAP responded 5 months later, on 09/21/2024 and issued a
DAC (underlined in green, above) when it should have been a citation from SLOPD.
*DAC issued to 1275 Stafford B on 02/14/2024, so property is on SLOPD’s “No Warning” list for 9 months or until
11/14/2024 but SNAP responded on 10/25/2024 and issued a DAC which should have been a citation from SLOPD.
*A citation was issued to 1275 Stafford A on 03/16/2024, so property is on SLOPD’s “No Warning” list for 9 months
or until 12/16/2024 but SNAP responded on 11/15/2024 and issued a DAC which should have been a citation from
SLOPD.
•All 3 or 4 addresses are on the same parcel or APN and are occupied by members of Phi Kappa Psi fraternity,
yet each address is eligible for a DAC before a citation is issued. They get at least 3 chances with zero fine DACs
(one for each address) before a citation is issued, then each citation to separate addresses is $350, rather than
cumulatively increasing to the whole property.
•For example, 1275 Stafford B received a DAC on 02/14/2024 (in green box). Less than one month later, 1271
Stafford received a DAC on 03/09/2024 (in green box). One week later, 1273 received a DAC on 03/16/2024 (in
green box). Each of these events took place in the central courtyard between the three houses and the DACs
were issued to fraternity members of Phi Kappa Psi.
•Each of these free “chances” serves as a lack of accountability for the fraternity to the neighborhood.
Records request from
SLOPD missing calls so
records re-requested for
all “units” at 1275 Stafford
(below).
SNAP
SNAP - Not DAC eligible*
SNAP - Not DAC eligible*
SLO City Map shows 1271,
1273 and 1275 Stafford are all
located on the same parcel.
SIGMA NU – Conditional Use Permit, R-4 zone
30
•When Sigma Nu hosts a party, it often installs 6’ fences around the perimeter of its front yard
and covers the fences with plastic or tarps to obscure the view of its fraternity parties.
•The fraternity members remove the fence a day or two after the party. See photos from party on
4/19/2024 (below) and 2/28/2025 (at bottom of page)
**
Sigma Pi installed a fence
covered with plastic to hide its
party on 2/28/2025 (left).
The fraternity received a noise
citation for a noisy party with 100
people. (above)
**HBD – “Has Been Drinking” or Intoxicated
31
Fall 2024 to
present
2024-2025
academic yr
2023-2024
academic
year
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties (NSPY) at 1304 Foothill are below:
•Most citations to Sigma Nu list 100 people at the parties.
•SLOPD officers do not count the number of attendees. Officers frequently ask the host of the
party how many people are at the event and use the number given by the host on the citation.
•Sigma Nu also has multiple “satellite” fraternity houses that host noisy fraternity parties in the
neighborhood, which is illegal. These events are registered beforehand with Cal Poly’s Greek Life
office therefore the locations of illegal fraternity houses are known to Cal Poly but not shared with
the City. Community Development made a Public Records Request for the addresses of
registered fraternity events, and Cal Poly refused to disclose the locations to the City.
ZETA BETA TAU – Main Chapter House, R-4 NOT LEGAL, No Permit
32
Zeta Beta Tau does not have a permitted fraternity house. It operates from 654 and
658 Graves (R-4), 1928 Garfield (R-4), 244 Albert (R-1), 2044 Loomis (R-1), 212 Albert
(R-1), 2044 McCollum (R-1), 1646 Fredericks (R-1).
Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report published 10/1/2023 listed Zeta Beta Tau, 654 Graves Ave, but it was
removed from the subsequent Report because the house is not owned by the fraternity. AB 524
defines a “Chapter House” as a residence owned by the fraternity or the university.
33
Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report published 10/1/2023 lists the addresses that held fraternity events,
including the main chapter house and satellite houses:
On June 13, 2024, City Code Enforcement sent Advisory Letters to the property owner, Jerry
Lenthall. Despite the notification, Zeta Beta Tau continues to operate at 654 and 658 Graves
Avenue without a Conditional Use Permit.
34
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties at 654 and 658 Graves are below:
SLO City Map shows 654 and
658 Graves Ave are located on
the same parcel.
SNAP *Not DAC
eligible
*Issuance of a DAC places the property on “No Warning” list with subsequent responses from SLOPD officers
(not SNAP) and citations issued for noise violations within 9 months of the most recent citation.
*A citation was issued to 658 Graves on 03/18/2023 (underlined in red, above) and property is on SLOPD’s “No
Warning” list for 9 months, or until 12/18/2024 but SNAP responded on 11/09/2024 and issued a DAC (underlined
in green, above) when it should have been a citation from SLOPD.
35
This report only covers one weekend which was an ordinary, non-holiday weekend. During the
weekend, there were at 18 separate calls to SLOPD for noisy parties at documented fraternity house
locations. Most of the homes are operating illegally, without a permit, or in an R-1 or R-2 residential
zone where fraternities are not allowed.
Cal Poly has 19 fraternities with over 50 fraternity locations, mostly in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods.
The City of San Luis Obispo, including Community Development officials, have contacted Cal Poly
numerous times to make them aware that fraternity events are illegal in R-1 and R-2 residential zones.
A presentation was given by Code Enforcement officials at Cal Poly in January 2025 leading up to
winter rush, that was mandatory for all fraternity members and potential new members. City officials
explained that fraternity events are not legally allowed in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. The following
week, most of the 19 fraternities held rush events in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. Cal Poly staff,
including Greek Life administration, allowed, and continue to allow, fraternity events to be registered
beforehand in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, despite knowing that fraternity events are illegal at those
locations.
Proposed Solutions?
•Hold Cal Poly responsible. Obtain addresses where fraternity events are registered with Cal Poly
Greek life, as shown on the AB 524 Reports. Cal Poly denied a public records request from
Community Development, which is not in compliance with the California Public Records Act,
therefore the City should file a Writ to compel release of the addresses.
•Coordinate between the City Community Development and SLOPD to create a database of all
addresses of properties operating as a fraternity and require response from CSO or sworn officer,
not student SNAP officers.
•If Code Enforcement officials are not available to respond to a reported illegal fraternity event,
SLOPD should be equipped to respond to those complaints and cite the fraternity
members/property owner for violating the SLOMC. Code Enforcement has failed to respond to
several fraternity events reported ahead of time that occur during the weekend because Code
Enforcement employees don’t work on weekends. The reported events were dismissed as “unable
to verify” by the City.
•Properties documented to be operating as fraternities should not be eligible for a DAC.
•Properties documented to be operating as fraternities should not be eligible for SLOPD “Early
Removal Program” to wipe its citation history clean.
•SLOPD should strictly enforce the noise ordinance, as they did leading up to St. Partick’s Day,
especially in Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods. At the very least, properties identified
as holding fraternity events should be flagged, and the noise ordinance strictly enforced with zero
tolerance at those addresses.
•Citations on properties with multiple addresses should be cumulative and not cited separately.
(See CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha which has 6 addresses on one parcel and each citation is
attributed to a single address to hold the fraternity accountable.)
•Citation fines have not changed in 15 years, since 2010, while other fines and fees in the City have
increased multiple times. Citation fines should be increased accordingly.
•Bring legal action against the fraternity property and owners for operating illegally within the City.
(See case from 1989 where the City took such action against a fraternity operating without a CUP,
attached. The City acted immediately after a complaint was made, and the matter was quickly
resolved.)
r MEETING DATE:
City Of San LUIS OBISPO i 9-19-89
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Randy Rossi, Interim Community Development Director By: Judith Lautner,k
SUBJECT:
U1449B: Appeal of the Planning Commission's action denying a use permit to allow a
fraternity house near the northeasterly corner of Foothill Blvd. and Ferrini Road.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution upholding the Planning Commission's action and denying the appeal.
BACKGROUND
Discussion
The applicants have been living at the site for more than a year, and for most of that
time operating as a fraternity without a use permit. The city received complaints about
the use in August 1988 and requested the fraternity to make an application. The
fraternity responded in a letter (attached) that they were preparing an application.
After several months passed and no application was received, and after receiving
additional complaints that the apartments at the site were continuing to be-used as a
fraternity and that the behavior of the residents was objectionable to the neighbors, the
City Attorney cited the residents for a zoning violation. The court heard the case in
April 26, 1989, and fined the members for operating as a fraternity without a use permit
and placed it on probation for one year. One requirement of that probation was that the
fraternity apply for a use permit within 30 days of the April date. The applicants
applied on June 6, 1989, about six weeks after the judge's action. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the use permit on August 9, 1989.
The site contains two apartments separated by a garage. The use permit application
includes plans to remodel and add to the apartments, and to construct a parking lot at
the rear. The site and remodelling plans, along with the applicants' proposal to house
twelve occupants at the site, meet the city's zoning regulations for parking and
occupancy.
The Planning Commission heard testimony from several neighbors and owners of adjacent
property. Much of the testimony related specific problems, caused by the fraternity
members, with parking, noise, and disruptive behavior. The neighbors also offered
evidence that the house has been operated as a fraternity house for approximately one
year.
Testimony was also given by citizens, who do not live or own property near the site,
about the history of this particular fraternity. The fraternity previously had a use
permit for a house on Palm Street. After several complaints and review hearings, the
Planning Commission revoked that use permit. On appeal, the council took no action on
that use permit because the fraternity was moving out.
Based on public testimony, the Planning Commission found the use incompatible with the
neighborhood and a threat to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons living or
working nearby, and denied the use permit. Staff is recommending that the council uphold
the commission's action by denying the appeal.
111111111 ll1 I "J (
MEETING DATE:
Nia;
pa l c o san'iuis oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
nEM NUMBER:
Page 2
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The proposed use is categorically exempt from CEQA (Class 1, section 15301): The project
includes an addition to existing structures of not more than 50% of the existing floor
area, or more than 2500 square feet.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the council upholds the appeal, the fraternity use permit will be granted, with or
without conditions limiting the use.
Data summary
Address: 720 and 726 Foothill Blvd.
Applicant: Alpha Upsilon Fraternity, Inc.
Representative: Scott C. Moran; Appellant: Jens Wessel, President, Alpha Upsilon
Property owner: Alpha Upsilon Alumni Corporation
Zoning: R-4
General plan: High-density residential
Environmental status:Categorically exempt - Class 1, section 15301: project includes
an addition to existing structures of not more than 50% of the
existing floor area, or more than 2500 square feet.
Project action deadline: January 28, 1990
Site description
The site is a large (11,375 square feet) L-shaped lot containing two one-story apartment
buildings, connected by a garage. The buildings are set back about 17' from the front
property line. Most of the front yard is taken up by asphalt, used for parking. The
rear yard is fenced, and contains a small concrete pad and grasses. The site is
essentially surrounded by apartments on three sides, and is across the street from a
shopping center.
Proiect description
The project is to be done in two phases: In phase one, the garage would be removed, a
parking lot for twelve cars would be constructed behind the apartments, and the
apartments would be remodelled to provide six bedrooms, two bathrooms, a living room and
kitchen. In phase two, the buildings would be remodelled again, and an upper floor
added. The end result would be a building with six bedrooms, five bathrooms, two
kitchens, a "chapter room" and living room.
PREVIOUS REVIEW
The Planning Commission reviewed this request on August 9, 1989, and denied it, based on
the following findings:
1. The proposed use will adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons
living or working on the site or in the vicinity.
MEETING DATE:
city of San tuts OBispo ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORTU1449b
Page 3
2. The use is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with
surrounding development.
Staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was to approve the use for residential
use and small meetings only, given that the site could meet ordinance requirements. At
the commission's hearing, however, public testimony as to recent fraternity actions,
including rush activities, noise, disruptive behavior, unauthorized use of private
parking.spaces, and continuing lack of maintenance of the property, convinced staff that
the fraternity use is not compatible with the neighborhood. Anticipating heightened
fraternity use if this permit is approved, staff, therefore, concurs with the Planning
Commission's action.
EVALUATION
Staff suggests the council consider-
1.onsider1. Occuoancv requirements. The zoning regulations set limits on the number of persons
that may live in group housing. The maximum number allowed in the R-4 zone is 55
persons per acre. The maximum allowed on this site, then, is
11,375 square feet/43,560 SF per acre = 0.26 acre
0.26 acre X 55 = 14
The applicants want to have twelve residents. The occupancy limit is therefore not
exceeded.
2. Parking requirements. The zoning regulations require one space per 1.5 residents, or
1.5 spaces per bedroom, whichever is greater, for this use. The requirement,
therefore, is
1.5X6 = 9 or 12/1.5 = 8
Therefore, the parking requirement is 9 spaces.
The applicants propose to construct 12 spaces on the lot. Therefore, the requirement
is met, and would be met with the maximum occupancy of 14, also. Parking for large
gatherings is not available, however. This topic is discussed further below, under
meetings".
3. Meetings, The applicants want to use the house for general membership meetings and
special events. Staff is concerned with this part of the request for two reasons:
Noise and objectionable behavior. Any large gatherings are likely to cause
noise problems for the neighbors (and already have). Parties where alcohol is
served often result in situations that cannot be controlled by the fraternity
leaders, and are disturbing to the neighborhood.
Parking. On-site parking will be provided for the residents. Three
additional spaces will be available as well. However, there is not adequate
parking either on-site or nearby for large gatherings.
111 I1111I111 I f
MEE nNG DATE:
Mi;
I I ICl O San lUl S OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Imo"NUMBER:
Page 4
At the Planning commission hearing, the fraternity representative said that the
parking lot across the street (Foothill Plaza) has been used for parking for large
gatherings. No permission from the shopping center's owner; nor any city approvals,
have been requested or granted for this use. Neighbors of the site expressed
concerns with the safety of visitors crossing Foothill Boulevard, even if such an
arrangement were approved. Some of the neighbors noted that their parking lots have
been used for fraternity members and guests without their permission.
For these reasons, staff cannot support using the house for general membership
meetings or large parties.
4. Neighborhood nrosram. The Planning Commission, in its approval of three sororities
in the recent past, and of one fraternity, has required "neighbor relations plans".
These plans include a requirement to distribute telephone numbers of responsible
persons to all neighbors surrounding the house, and for announcements to these
neighbors of all special and regular events. Staff recommends that if the council
approves the use permit, such a plan be required in this case, as the site is
surrounded by high-density development. A copy of such a plan, approved for a
sorority, is attached.
5. Existing buildings. At present, the site contains two apartments, separated by a
garage adequate for one car. The residents park their cars on the paved front yard.
Including the garage and the concrete area in front, there may be space available at
present for two legal parking spaces, in tandem. The paved area is not approved for
parking. Staff has been unable to determine when the paving was installed, but notes
that parking in the streetyard is not allowed. The present condition therefore does
not meet the parking requirement for a fraternity.
If the use permit is approved, staff recommends a condition be attached that the use
permit will not be effective until phase one of the project is complete. Until that
time, the buildings may be used as residences only.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The council may deny the request, as recommended by staff and the Planning
Commission, if it makes findings to support a denial.
2. The council may approve the use, subject to conditions suggested by staff or with
modifications to those conditions. Staff suggests that if the council prefers to
approve the use with regular chapter meetings at the house, the council should add
the following:
Conditions:
a. The applicant shall submit a parking management plan to address parking for
large gatherings, to the approval of the Community Development Department
staff. Failure of members of the fraternity and invited guests to adhere to the
approved plan may be grounds for revocation of this use permit. All group
gatherings involving more than 16 persons shall be held offsite until the
parking management plan is submitted to and approved by the Community
Development Director, and is in effect.
MEETING GATE:
111111111111110111 city Of San tins OBISPO
MEM
N"ACOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
NU` `
U 1449B
Page 5
b. A maximum of 70 persons, or a lower number if so determined by the Fire Marshal,
may occupy the site at any one time. This occupancy limit shall be posted in
the building at a location satisfactory to the Fire Department.
C. This use permit shall be reviewed in one year. At that time, conditions may be
added or modified, or the use permit may be revoked.
3. The council may continue the request, if additional information is needed. Direction
should be given to staff and the applicants.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution upholding the Planning Commission's action denying the use permit, and
denying the appeal.
If the council chooses to approve the use permit, staff has attached a resolution with
suggested findings and conditions.
i'
Attached: Vicinity map
Draft resolutions
Applicant's statement
Letter from fraternity noting intent to file use permit application
Planning Commisssion minutes - August 9, 1989
Appeal
Sample neighbor relations plan
JL7:u 1449cc
1
i
RESOLUTION NO. 1989 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
DENYING A USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY AT 720 - 726 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings That this council, after consideration of the use permit
request U 1449B, and the Planning Commission's action denying that use permit, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed use will adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons
living or working on the site or in the vicinity.
2. The use is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with
surrounding development.
SECTION 2. The request for approval of the appeal and use permit "request U 1449B is
hereby denied.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Resolution No. 1989 Series)
U 1449B
Page 2
APPROVED:
City dministrative Officer
City Attorne
Community Development Director
JL7:res l 449
RESOLUTION NO. 1989 SERIES)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION DENYING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FRATERNITY
AT 720 AND 726 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (U1449B)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of Public Testimony,
the use permit request• U 1449B, and the Planning Commission's action denying that use
permit, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons
living or working on the site or in the vicinity.
2. The use is appropriate at the proposed,location and will be compatible with
surrounding development.
3. The proposal conforms to the general plan and meets zooning ordinance requirements.
4. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review.
SECTION 2. The appeal is granted and use permit request U 1449B is hereby approved.
SECTION 3. That approval of the use permit shall be subject to the following
conditions:
Conditions:
1. This use permit shall not take effect until "phase one" improvements have been
completed and accepted by the city.
2. Occupancy shall be limited to the Alpha Upsilon fraternity unless approved by the
Planning Commission.
3. No more than twelve people shall live at the house at any time.
4. The applicant shall allow the city to verify occupancy of the house by allowing an
inspection of the records or by a visual inspection of the premises. Any inspection
shall be at a reasonable time and shall be preceded by a one-hour notice to the
residents.
5. The site shall be.maintained in a neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Department. All plant materials shall be maintained and
replaced as needed.
6. If a reasonable complaint, as determined by the Community Development Director, is
received in writing by the Community Development Department, the complaint shall be
referred to the Planning Commission for consideration at the commission's next
available meeting.
r i
Resolution No. 1989 Series)
U1449B
Page 2
7. The Chief Building Official and the Fire.Marshal shall inspect the structure for code
compliance.
8. Events, including meetings, parties, or any other gathering of more than 20 persons
on site, are prohibited. No events involving persons other than residents living on
this site are allowed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m.
9. The applicant.shall institute and maintain a neighborhood relations program similar
to the attached Exhibit A. This plan shall include at least the following elements:
Annual training of all members in community relations.
A program to .inform neighbors of upcoming meetings at the fraternity house.
Submission of names and telephone numbers of responsible persons to the
Community Development Department and to the neighbors within two blocks of the
house. Responsible persons shall be available during all events and at
reasonable hours otherwise, to receive and handle complaints.
10. Events, including meetings, parties, or any other official fraternity function, shall
be listed on a meeting and activities schedule, submitted to and approved by the
Community Development Director in. the fall of each year. Exceptions to this schedule
must be approved by the Community Development Director. If the Director determines
the change is significant and may have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, then it
will be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Evidence of implementation of said plan shall be submitted to the director for review
each year. Failure to implement said plan may be grounds for revocation of this
permit.
11. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the
conduct of the use so as to constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse
impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is
prohibited and may, constitute grounds for revocation of this permit.
CODE REQUIREMENT
1. Greek letters shall be allowed on the building or fence in accordance with. the Sign
Regulations.
3- 9
Resolution No. 1989 Series)
U 1449B
Page 3
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
ity A nistrative Officer
V
City Attorne
Community Development Director
C
J.-/0
O 'Z-4 C/oS - 1J+a/rJ
nc_ 6
a!o
Y
r •
f
tirf
is
t
e
oJls
7 t O e`i
tz: AVO
V
l• l'a
O•
z /W O
0 I - 0
O O O
aq a
t.L
J ,•ll + 11 S
i I
M I eI
y1
j lol.p 7 0
t
y L
ata n-.oN. V'
J
f
Ot
t
AM.
o PFa .
C-N
IA4aril
o ai
Rol
sT-IJ
Ni
At
e a
w+n n
rr- • 7
X70 6E0 661
10]) 71S:
J. ; Vfill FOOTHILL
t l 1
t+e rs
1 Ga 19
fill 171.17 7w-tA TI N)r•t
pA le•ew a. •y+ 0)1• r-r •Yaa-U r.arN Z w•e-IL!
ntet-I( 1rIMA'rl "mat
e•ar elwar t1Y'. /!• Mt .:nwt O y
3
nt •)rr u1-« n smrav
Ccr.
x m
tea]. rW lf•Y•
1tetL l+)!
as JfP •j
1T f0•
l61`• u-9—R
Date: June 6, 1989
To:San Luis Obispo Department of Community Development
From: Scott C. Moran, Alpha Upsilon Fraternity
Subject: Use Permit application for Alpha Upsilon Fraternity to operate at
720 & 726 Foothill Boulevard.
Alpha Upsilon Alumni Corporation purchased the property located at 720 and 726
Foothill Boulevard in July of 1988 as a potential site for the fraternity to operate. Alpha
Upsilon Fraternity has thirty members and hopes to provide housing for 12 members on
the site. It is intended that the site serve as alocation for weekly General Meetings,
lasting approximately one hour on Sundays from 6:00 p.m. It is also intended that the
site will serve as a location for social events, approximately three to four times per
academic quarter. These social events would consist of In-House Members and invited
guests only and would not consist of"Open Parties".
The site is presently zoned R-4 and has neighboring lots consisting of medium to high
density housing and commercial properties. In order to facilitate the Use Permit process,
Alpha Upsilon Alumni Corporation has plans to demolish a portion of one building (a
garage) in order to gain access to the backyard for parking. There are also plans to
rennovate the interiors of the existing buildings. The parking lot and the rennovations are
the first part of a two phase plan. The second phase would add a second story and further
rennovate the buildings to thier completed form. Attached are the preliminary drawings
of each phase.. The working drawings are being done by a local architect, named Robert
Richmond.
We are eager to obtain a Use Permit and will do all we can to contribute to making the
process as smooth as possible.
Thank You,
t
Scott C. Moran
Housing Task Force Chairman
Alpha Upsilon Fraternity
The following is a list of the people representing Alpha Upsilon Fraternity in the
application process:
Scott Moran Alpha Upsilon Housing Task Force Chairman
Jens Wessel Alpha Upsilon President
Donald Kahn Alpha Upsilon Alumni Corp. Board of Directors
Robert Richmond Architect
Alpha Upsilon Fraternity Use Permit Application
f
The following is a list of neighboring lots of 720 & 726 Foothill Boulevard:
East
730 Foothill Blvd.
Single Family Residence (Rental-Students)
West
710 Foothill Blvd.
8-Unit Apartment Complex
North
140 Ferrini St.
22-Unit Apartment Complex
772 Foothill Blvd.
8-Unit Apartment Complex
South (Across Street - Foothill Blvd.)
Luckyfrhrifty Shopping Center
X3-/3
o
To RLY RC ZUer
ejcr Al2MPejJI1,A (aA2Dt
October 3, 1988
City of San Luis Obispo RECCENED
Planning Department
990 Palm St. OCT Z
San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 C.ty cf Se Ly}UMaOo
Cor..'vr:-.y Cevetocrnem
Dear Planning Staff,
This letter is concerning Alpha Upsilon Fraternity's recent purchase of the property
located at 720 and 726 Foothill Boulevard. It has been our full intention from the start to
obtain a use permit to function at this property. This was also was a major factor in our
decision to purchase the property. We feel this location is ideal for a fraternity use due to its
zoning(R-4),proximity to Cal-Poly, and its relationship to surrounding properties. .
We have been actively working towards submitting a use permit application and
recently met with City Planning Director,Mike MultarL to discuss our possible options: Our
housing committee is currently consulting with architects on the development plans for this
parcel. In this process we hope to mitigate neighborhood concerns such as noise and parking.
There recently has been a great deal of concern over publications announcing rush
functions at this address. These flyers were printed before we realised all the problems with
holding fraternity functions at this location. This problem has been corrected,and we fully
intend to hold no functions at this address,
We are confident that we can work with the neighborhood and the city to mach a
positive solution for a fraternity use of the property. We will inform you of the progress on
our application, and we encourage you to call us with any concerns you may have.
Sincerely,
G'
Scott Moran
Vice-President
Alph Upsilon Fraternity
James Hendrickson
Housing Chairman
Alpha Upsilon Fraternity
J
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes
August 9, 1989
3. Public Hearing: Use Permit U1449. Request to allow a fraternity house; 720 foothill
Boulevard; R-4 zone; Alpha Upsilon Fraternity, applicant.
Judith Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending approving of
the use permit with conditions limiting the use to residential with small meetings.
Vice-Chairman Crotser opened the hearing.
Scott Moran, 720 Foothill, applicant's representative, discussed the fraternity's
history, request, and the search for an appropriate site. He discussed the
Intrafraternity Council's procedures to handle complaints and regulate fraternal activity
and conduct. He discussed the specific.site plans.
Phillip Simon, 1510 Higuera, attorney representing Al and Elinor Bonin, discussed
neighborhood concerns about this group's behavior to date and the activities on site. He
distributed a petition of opposition, which cited concerns about increased parking needs,
activities, and gatherings, and traffic problems.
Al Bonin, 272 Del Mar Ct., discussed an increase in the amount of police calls to the
site and asked that the permit be denied. He noted that there are 10.2 apartments within
300 feet of the site and 41 more nearby.
Dennis Adams, 2020 Hope Street, was concerned about traffic, parking, and disruptive
behavior in the area.
Mary Gobel, 2766 Flora, was concerned about parking and noise problems, and the use of
loud, profane, language.
Vil Gillespie, Box 3, Rte. 298, San Luis Obispo, was concerned about increased traffic,
parking, and the incompatible use within the neighborhood. He said fraternity members
use his parking lot at 772 Foothill.
Kathryn Reed, 250 Ferrini, was concerned with traffic, parking, and loud. parties. She
felt the fraternity is too close to an existing sorority in the neighborhood.
Patrick Gerety, 793 Buchon, discussed the history of abusive behavior displayed by this
group and felt they have forfeited their right to operate in this city. He requested
denial of the permit and suggested referring the fraternity to the National Fraternity
Council or the Cal Poly Dean of Students for disciplinary action.
Terry Drinkard, 140 Ferrini #15, was opposed to the fraternity location and i.;,e use
permit request.
Kathryn Dinkard, 140 Ferrini #15, agreed that the request should be denied.
Elinor Bonin, 272 Del Mar Ct., discussed problems and complaints at her 140 Foothill
apartment complex.
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes
August 9, 1989
Page 2
Sandy Gillespie, Box 3, Rte. 298, San Luis Obispo, felt the request should be denied
because the fraternity had operated without permits, had delayed the permit application
process, and felt the fraternity was setting an unfair precedent. She was concerned
about the non-cooperative attitude of the group.
Roy Hanff, 569 Lawrence, felt there had been several complaints about this fraternity
that had never been processed. He suggested a perf.o'rmance bonding process to protect
taxpayers and the community. .
Mr. Morin, in response to public comments, stated he felt it was unfair to judge the
present fraternity group on the past behavior of former members.
Vice-Chairman Crotser closed the public hearing.
Commr. Roalman. felt this use would affect the health, safety, and welfare of the
neighbors and supported a denial of the. permit.
Commr. Karleskint supported denial of the permit due to the impacted area and the
inappropriateness of the site, as well as the documented abusive behavior of this group
at this site in the recent past, and their apparent uncooperative attitude to date.
r
Commr. Kourakis was against the permit due to the incompatibility with the neighborhood
and the fraternity's disregard for the community rights.
Commr. Hoffman agreed with Commr. Karleskint.
Vice-Chairperson Crotser felt the land use of R-4 was appropriate and the the conditions
were reasonable. He allowed that it was a new membership filing the request but was
concerned about traffic, safety, and welfare, and neighborhood compatibility..
Commr. Karleskint moved to deny the use permit due to adverse health, safety, and welfare
concerns and neighborhood incompatibility.
Commr. Roalman seconded the. motion, Resolution No. 4092-89.
VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Karleskint,.Roalman, Hoffman, Kourakis, Crotser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Schmidt, Duerk
The motion passes.
il ill ll ll I INN1 city of san luis OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I . Chapter
1 .20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of Tt UiLj Pu.1i 1 1C CU.IM15<'jQJ rendered
on A116UST C1 , 19:'`1.which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed) :
C
1n1 cvr.1 ixs u c.dr.>,s>,,,,y.Q) TL r
A410 vyFPuQu.i R C
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
on
Appellant:
RlPHFE UASI1s-4.1
Name/Title
ry JQis P2EvEoRepresentative
AUG 1 £S
Address
I:ITi r!EF.F;
Lu:S CL15PO. CA
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
2redr: Copy to City Administrative Officer
Co rtment(s) : 1
City Clerk T
i
TO: Judy Lautner DATE: October 7. 1986
FROM: Community Relations Committee,
Alpha Omicron Pi
SUBJECT: Community Relations Office and Committee. Community Relations Plan,
Meeting Information
I. Committee Relations Office and Committee - Neighborhood Plan
A. Co-chairs of Community Relations committee were appointed
September 29, 1986.
B. A Community Relations Committee of 7 members was formed. The
committee has established the following Community Relations Plan. . .
1 . Chapter Workshops
a. Community Relations Co-chairs will lead the annual work-
shops in the training of chapter members regarding community
relations.
1 . Meeting the neighbors.
2. Explanation of house rules and regulations. (eg. quiet
hours-, no alcohol , etc..)
3. Solicit recommendations for community projects and
workdays. (eg. window washing, ear washing, gardening)
4. Immediate contact available to neighbors regarding any
questions and concerns.
5. Immediate personal follovrup'in response to questions and
concerns. (eg. member of the chapter is dispatched from
the house to see neighbors in person.
6. Answer suggested questions and common concerns.
7. Neighborhood distribution of important information.
a.. Neighbors will be provided with phone numbers
of the House Manager, Chapter President, and
Chapter Advisor to answer to any concerns or
questions that may arise.
b. Neighbors will be provided a calendar of chapter
events each quarter. (eg. rush dates, presents,
special events)
c. Neighbors will r1ecd6ve follow-up notices one week
prior to each event.
8. A list of chapter members and their car license 9' s
will be made_ and kept at the house for any necessary
use.
EXHIBIT_ .
2
2. House Manager
a. One of the residents will be appointed House Manager.
She will have a variety of duties relating to the operation
and up-keep of the house.
b. House Manager will be an active member of the Community
Relations Committee and attend all meetings, which will
be held quarterly.
3. Community Service
a. Pledge Project
1 . During the fall quarter pledge period, pledges will be
expected to participate in a community project. (eg.
collection of newspapers/tin cans for recycling, neigh-
borhood car washing, weeding etc. )
2. Pledges will also participate in Workdays the first Sunday
of each month.
b. Good Neighbor Day
1 . All active members will participate in a Good Neighbor _
Day, which will be held in the spring quarter.
a. Services will include gardening., window washing and
other needed services.
b. Neighbors will be informed of community service days .
in advance to give them the opportunity to make
service requests.
4. Open House
a. Each fall quarter the chapter will host an open House
inviting the neighbors to become aquainted with the members
of Alpha Omicron Pi and express any 7uncerns that they may
have.
1 . House tour
2. Calendar events
3. Question/Answer session
4. Positive reinforcement and remedies to concerns.
5. Non-Compliance
a. Should a member be in violation of the agreed upon house
rules and regulations, there are penalty fines established
in the chapter's bylaws.
b. Alpha Omicron Pi bylaws provide for probation of a collegi1
member for failure to comply designated policies. Serious _
violation penalities include probation and suspension from
fraternal activities. bfT D
r
3
II. Meeting Information
A. Chapter Meetings-
1. Monday evenings between 6p.m. and 10p.m. Maximum number: 80
currently 50)
2. Nine to ten chapter meetings per quarter; no meetings during summer
or school academic holidays such as Christmas to New Years.
B. Leaders Council- Sundays preceeding Chapter Meetings between 4:30 and
6p.m. Maximum number: 10
C. Special Events:
1. Rush Practice: Maximum number:_ 50
M-F 9712, 2-5 1st week
r//
MJtl 9-12, 2-5 2nd week
M
2. Rush- end of WOW week
A
F 11:30 am-6 pm
S 11:30am-6 pm
000 r
S 12:00am-6:30 pm
M 7:00 pm-10:00 pm)
More formal events
T. 7:30 Dm-10:00 pm
i Maximum numbers: 50 members; 30-45 rushees per set. Members will
arrive a little earlier for .set-ups. Transportation is provided
for rushees by Panhellenic. They are brought and picked up by bus.
3: Open House for pledges and parents a Saturday in October, 1- 5 pm.
Maximum: 30-35
4. Overnight Retreat- Fall quarter- pledges only. Maximum: 30-35
5. Work Days: One Saturday per month approximently 10 am to 12 pm-
coordinated with community relations projects. Number of people
dependent on chores to be done.
Estimate: 30-40.
6. Other: Open Nouse for neighbors each quarter; open house for
visiting parents-Poly Royal. Neighbors to be provided with dates
and times of events quarterly.
CJ
7H7B1T D
0 Wn AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
To : San Luis Obispo City Council Date: Sept. 18, 1989
From : Alpha Upsilon Fraternity, Inc.
Jens F. Wessel, President
Re Request for contivance of our appeal of the City Planning Commission denial of
use permit application.
We respectfully request a continuance for our appeal hearing with the City Council.
Alpha Upsilon's legal council Mike Owens has an urgent matter to attend to and
therefore we cannot be properly represented. Thank you for your consideration.
Re7FWesselj
y Submitted By:
G OOOCOi 20 6343 09-19-89 i0
Je Pr&SC- 1 40.00
99999999999901
20 CASH ? TOTAL 1 40. 00
RECEIVE ®
SEP 1 8 146,,
C' CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS'OBISPO,CA
r
Denotes acbm by Lead Person
IdRespond
by:
I
CAO
e0ty Atty.
O'Clerk-orig.
OR. 7'fd.35f
n
CITY CLERK
lel WA
9EETING AGENDA
ITEM # -DATE
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS REGARDIMC- 720-726 FOOTHILL EOULEUAP.D
July , .1968 Fraternity purchases property
located at 720- 726 Foothill Blvd .
2 units: 1-1 bdrm; 1-3 bdrm
No application for use permit .
August, 1SEB City receives complaint that the
premises may house fraternity .
August 22, 1989 Letter to Fraternity .from City:
A Planning Commission use permit
must be appro,:ed to allow a Fraternity
at this address . If you intend to
establish such a use, you or a local
representative must apply For this
use permit immediately . I have enclosed
materials for such an application . "
September-
October, lose Fall Push week activities including
house warming party , BBQ with live music,
jamboree, smoker, etc . announced
for week of October 6-12., 1SBB .
All activities on premises with
jamboree sole invite only event .
Announcements displayed all over Cal Pcly
campus with colorful posters
October 1 , 1988 Owners of adjacent apartments complain
to Community De-'elopment Department re:
failure of Fraternity to have proper use
permit .
October 'f, 1966 Letter to City From Fraternity . Mentions
recent" purchase of property (4 months) .
It has been our full intention From start
to obtain a use permit to function at this
property . " Mentions "working towards a use
0errotesaGionbyLeadPorson
permit application. "
ZRepond by:
ncil Addresses issue of Push week activities:
CAO
C ityAtty This problem has been corrected, and we
Orcl fully intend to hold no functions at th '
address. "
F.REC.EIY.
SEP 189 '/0p•1ti
Page three
AREAS OF CONCERN
Use permit should be denied, as the Following areas of
concern have not been properly addressed:
1 . INCREASED PARKING NEEDS: Although the Fraternity 's
proposed plan calls For the construction of additional on-site
parking, such parking would not be adequate for any gathering or
meeting involving persons other- than the residents of the
premises . Clearly, the neighboring on-street. parking will be
compromised by the increased demand caused by any such gatherings
or meetings . Although the Fraternity has agreed to limit its
social Functions on premises , the track, record of the Fraternity
to date, as delineated above, speaks For itself regarding the
fraternity 's ability to restrict its activities as promised . It
has even been . reported that some Fraternity residents and/or
guests have been utilizing the offastreet parking From the
adjacent apartment buildings presently to solve their current
lack, of sufficient on-site parking spaces. Curbside in Front of
premises is designated as red nc-parking zone.
2 . INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION: This is an area of
high density residential housing, with three apartment complexes
adjacent to the fraternity premises . The conversion of two
residential units, to wit: 1-1 bedroom unit and 1-3 bedroom unit,
into a 12 person household, will surely increase the traffic Flow
in such high density area, even assuming the occupants do not
entertain others, which invariably will occur . Ferrini Street
has now been opened through to Highland Drive, creating a
shortcut to the Cal Poly campus . The increase in occupants, all
attending Cal Poly, will increase the traffic flow on Ferrini.
towards and back From Cal Poly, creating a thoroughFare out of a
small residential street.
3 . INCREASED NOISE: As can be seen From the events
which have taken. place to date, the Fraternity 's use of the
premises has increased the noise levels late at night and has
caused concern among neighboring residents.
Page four
f.LOITERING., ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IN PUBLIC AND
INCREASED LIITER: The fraternity 's plans call for no
restrictions on loitering or alcohol consumption, or clean-up of
area after fraternity events . These are concerns of the
neighboring residents as it has been reported that certain
Fraternity residents and/or guests have been seen loitering about
the premises and neighborhood, drinking alcohol in public. view,
making lewd comments to persons visiting residents of the
neighboring apartments and leaving their garbage thrown• about.
The premises are in close proximity to a liquor stare, a bar and
a market where alcohol is sold.
S . UNDERAGE DRINKING: The fraternity 's plans call Por-
no supervision of activities to insure that alcohol consumption
is limited to persons over the age of 21 .
6 . USE NOT IPJ CONFORMITY WITH NEIGHBOP.HODD: This is a
residential neighborhood, with businesses to the east and a
shopping center. to the south across the street. Although- there
is a sorority on the next block, the alcohol use and noisy. party
atmosphere of a fraternity does not appear to exist there ..
There exists in close proximity to the premises in question over
100 apartment units, mostly family oriented, with elementary
school on next block. The party atmosphere of the fraternity, as
can be deduced from the events so far scheduled: by the -
Fraternity , does not coincide with the family oriented mature of,
the balance of the neighborhood.
7.THE FRATERNITY 'S APPEAL: The fraternity; through-
its president now complains that the decision of the planning--
commission
lanning_
commission was unfair and based on misleading inEormation whichn
condemned and unfairly represented them . It does appear- that thea
Fraternity and its officers have forgotten the fads.
Page five
On August 22, 1988, Judy Lautner, an associate planner
with the City , wrote the fraternity regarding the neighbors '
concerns about the fraternity functioning at the address without
a use permit . The fraternity responded on October 4, 1988
through its vice president, Scott Moran, who indicated, "there
recently has been a great deal of concern over publications
announcing rush functions at this address. These flyers were
printed well before we realized all the problems with holding
fraternity functions at this location. This problem has been
corrected, and we .fully intend to hold no functions at this
address" . Less than 3 days later, beginning October 6th and
continuing on October 9th, 9th, 11th, and 12th, functions were
held at this address. Still without a permit, the Fraternity
continued to advertise and actually held these functions, in
total contradiction to their written advisement to the City .
Certainly , these facts are not misrepresented .
Again in the spring, 1999, still without a use permit,
the fraternity held more functions &at this address . Still
without a permit, the fraternity advertised these functions.
This is not a misrepresentation, this is a set of facts.
As a result of these facts, the fraternity was cited
For a violation . The City Filed a complaint against the
Fraternity to force them to either cease and desist from holding
Fraternity functions at the address or obtain a use permit . The
fraternity was ordered by the Municipal Court of San Luis Obispo
County to comply with a term and condition of probation to apply
for a use permit within 30 days. The fraternity did not comply
with the court orders . This is not a misrepresentation, it is a
Fact . The fraternity filed for its permit later than as ordered
by the court. This is a fact, it is not a misrepresentation.
The use requested by the fraternity increases an already
impacted" neighborhood . This is not a misrepresentation, this
is a fact .
The only misleading information or information that has
been unfairly presented, appears to come from the fraternity and
its members.
C
Page Six
CONCLUSION
It is difficult to understand how the City Council can
approve a use permit for the fraternity which use permit does not
touch upon the issues presented herein, in light of the concerns
as expressed herein . It is requested that such use permit be
denied. It is also extremely difficult to understand how the
City Council would be willing to accept the Fraternity at its
word, in light of the failure of the fraternity to comply with
the City 's initial request For a use permit application, and in
light of the Fraternity 's Failure to comply with its own self
imposed restrictions after being notified of its violation of the
zoning ordinance and in light of the Fact that the Fraternity
Failed to comply with the court imposed probation condition .
In the event that the City Council would be inclined to grant
the use permit to the Fraternity , such action would be tantamount
to looking the other way regarding the Fraternity 's Full year of
occupancy without the proper use permit, in spite of the Fact
that the current application was filed only after the Fraternity
was ordered to do so as a condition of probation, after
successful prosecution of the zoning violation initiated by the.
City after receiving complaints From neighboring residents
regarding the Fraternity 's activities.
j,ll ly.+.`,s511!,H.,ai I li•,III'
Ih city of sAn luis OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo. CA 93403.8100
22 August 1988
Alpha Upsilon Alumni Corporation
96 W. Campbell
Campbell, CA 95008
SUBJECT: Use of property at 720 and 726 Foothill Blvd.
Dear AU Alumni representative:
Our records indicate that you own property at 720 and 726 Foothill Blvd. I visited the
property today, after receiving a complaint that a fraternity may be located there.
Nobody was home, but I noted fraternity-related equipment in the yard and in an open
storage room.
A Planning Commission use permit must be approved to allow a fraternity at this address.
If you intend to establish such a use, you or a local representative must apply for this
Jl
use permit immediately. I have enclosed materials for such an application. If the
property is not intended as a fraternity house, please let me know.
If you have questions about this, call me at (805) 549-7166.
Sincerely,
a I it,(-il/u
Judith Lautner
Associate Planner
enclosures
cc: Steve Schneider
a
C- t_
w
Z V o W
z cn Wwpm
F uj> oA o U
oz
tea
z V
fig
vim
V o
y z
o
0 o i. ' ba ti a c pR .
o di z o ti IA 4 ` o 0
r o ti N • tv AQ 3 a u a Z
o E.. co Q tA ^co p o0PM
V V V V V V C
O O o O o bk
L
H Santa Rosa
O
O ChORO
IL r i u
Od n IL(A
AP--
A
c r"
1^
October 1. 1988
Community Development Dept.--Planning Division
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
To Whom It May Concerns
r
As property owners adjacent to the recent ..purchase
of one parcel located at 720-726 Foothill Blvd, San Luis
Obispo by Alpha Upsilon Fraternity, we are concerned about
the activities which will inevitably be very disturbing
to our tenants. Particularly so will be the activities
that, according to their posters circulated on the Cal Poly
campus, will be extremely disruptive toward-the tranquility
of the neighborhood..
The planned activities as posted by the fraternity
will includes
1. Thursday, October 6. 8. 00 P.M. House Warming Party
2. Saturday, October 89 12.00 to 4.00 P.M. BBQ With Live Music
3. Saturday, October 89 8.00 P.M. Caribbean Calypso( exehange wi,
4. Sunday, October 99 AY Jamboree AX11Sororit;
5. Tuesday. October 119 8.00 P.M. Smoker
6. Wednesday October 129 8.00 P.M. Interviews
These fraternity .a_.etivities as currently planned with
undoubtedly more to follow in the future in an area that is
not in conformity With city codes and land use permits are
of grave concern to us.
The continued investigation by the City Community
Development Department into this situation is appreciated.
The Lanai Apar ants. 1Fe int SLO
Owners C'__xL 1#
lei de. J V Bonin
L 44- apld
inor K. Bonin
710 Foothill Apartments, SLO
Owners
Dennis A... Adams
772 Foothill A t n , LO
Owners'
Val Gij iespf a p.
Sandra Gillespie
C:
Sl i H LAUTNER
ate Planner To c,^,`LjrPlanningDivision
b'sl} I+c Cwt.
AaMOE.ILlli" !i V O t"A ClN2 1J
san tuts OBISPO Aa-wz Came
Community Deveio m neDartment•(805) 549-7166
990 Palm St.•P.O.Hox 8100•San Luis Obm=.CA 93403.8100
City of San Luis Obispo RECEIVED
Planning Department
990 Palm St. OCT ,8' 1988
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
X l'J•:U7YfG0
Dear Planning Staff.
This letter is concerning Alpha Upsilon Fraternity's recent purchase of the property
located at 720 and 726 Foothill Boulevard. It has been our full intention from the start to
obtain a use permit to function at this property. This was also was a major factor in our
decision to purchase the property. We feel this location is ideal for a fraternity use due to its
zoning(R-4),proximiry to Cal-Poly, and its relationship to surrounding properties.
We have been actively working towards submitting a use permit application and
recently met with City Planning Director,Mike Multari,to discuss our possible options. Our
housing committee is currently consulting with architects on the development plans for this
parcel. In this process we hope to mitigate neighborhood concerns such as noise and parldng.
There recently has been a great deal of concern over publications announcing rash
functions at this address. These flyers were printed before we realised all the problems with
holding fraternity functions at this location. This problem has been corrected,and we fully
intend to hold no ftmctions at this address.
We are confident that we can work with the neighborhood and the city to reach a
positive solution for a fraternity use of the property. We will inform you of the progress on
our application,and we encourage you to call us with any concerns you may have.
Sincerely.
G
Scott Moran
Vice-Presideat
Alph Upsilon Fraternity
James Hendrickson
Housing Chairman
Alpha Upsilon Fraternity
Poo
l
C'
o m m c i
a Z v U)
Ry
MXODiv w
C)
w Nom,
w mowo
r r r r CO
0 0 Q m
Woof-
riw a
0 0 0
sd''..%+
nati t_, moi..
Z 111
a o
MIM4 Odom
fn eel*
CDCD CD CD m1a
00 00N av 0 a
C:) z C) o v
Budweiser. kud%i eiser. =
s
o
R
TT
Ce
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
ENTRY OF GUILTY/NO CONTEST PLEA - CASE NUMBER: M0001?8250
VS 7 COURT:
ALPHA, UPSILON / 001 DATE: TIME:
BE OF GOODOB Y ALL LAWS: CITY, COUNTY, STATE AND FEDERAL.
OBEY ALL LIKE VIOLATIONS.
NOT DRIVE UNLESS P'ROP'ERLY LICENSED TO DO SO / AND INSURED.
NOT DRIVE W/B.A. OVER .00%.
SUBMIT TO CHEMICAL TESTING UPON DEMAND OF ANY PEACE OFFICER OR
PROBATION OFFICER.
PAY FINE IN AMOUNT AND MANNER INDICATED ABOVE.
SERVE DAYS IN COUNTY JAIL INDICATED ABOVE.
ATTEND TRAFFIC SCHOOL DWI (FIRST OFFENDER) PROGRAM
S.. 7 ECOND OFFENDER) i T—ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS.
THEFT OFFENDER PROGRAM ASSAUETTVE-BEHAVIOR PROGRAM
SUB= PROOF OF ENROLLMENT WITFfIN— DAYS.
SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLETION WITHIN DAYS/MONTHS.
MAKE RESTITUTION THROUGH PROBATION DEPARTMENT AS DIRECTED FLUS 10%
COLLECTION FEE.
DRIVING PRIVILEGE SUSPENDED MONTHS/YEARS.
DRIVER'S LICENSE RESTRICTED DAYS/YEARS TO DRIVING ONLY
TO AND FROM WORK IN CUUR=OF EMPLOYMENT
TO AND FROM TREATMENT PROGRAM
NOT DRIVE IN VIOLATION OF LICENSE RESTRICTION.
PERFORM HOURS OF VOLUNTEER COMMUNITY SERVICE, PROOF OF
COMPLETIMT-QZTgnT- DAYS.
REPORT TO PROBATION OFFICER AS DIRECTED.
NOT CHANGE EMPLOYMENT RESIDENCE OR LEAVE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OR STATE OF CALIFORNIA WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING PERMISSION OF THE
PROBATION OFFICER.
SEEK AND MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT, OR ENROLLMENT IN SCHOOL.
COOPERATE WITH THE PROBATION OFFICER IN FLAN FOR TREATMENT.
NOT USE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES OR FREQUENT PLACE WHERE SALE OF SAME IS
PRINCIPAL BUSINESS.
NOT USE OR POSSESS ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.
SUBMIT UPON DEMAND OF ANY PEACE OFFICER OR PROBATION OFFICER TO SEARCH
OF PERSON PERSONAL PROPERTY RESIDENCE AND/OR VEHICLE OWNED OR BEINGOPERATEDAYDEFENDANTWITHOUTWARRANTANDWITHOUTNOTICETOLOOK
FOR
pALL TERMS AND CONDIT ON$ TO MAI IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
OTHER L
ULt
ABIDE BY SA E.
DEFENDANT Z ATTORNEY
LSL150-RO
END OF EPORT
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
ENTRY OF GUILTY/NO CONTEST PLEA - CASE NUMBER: M0001882510
THE PEUPLF_ OF THE STA ENT
VS COURT:
ALPHA, UPSILON / 001 DATE: , / TIME:
001 sl=mbtllret. l
JUDGE: J CLERK: _
PROSECUTOR Gum• llactkz 1§1DEFENDANT PRESENT
DEFENSE COUNSEL: %iC/'l97 L0 7/ 1. DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT
COURT REPORTER: INT TYPE: NAME:
REV=SLCR CASE-$ 0020LILI-ENLIANI IN
ON
MO ES AN CO T ORDERS COMP INT MENDED LkoEFENDANTMOVESTOWITyXiRAWPREVIOUSF A AND/OR PLEADSfOCONTESTT0: o?o?,//p a/C 7 /Ivy ,?-tZ0 yiL%
COURT DISMISSESUOURT Tl`UN Ul- IrA/UUUKI-OA
GROUNDS OF
PRIOR ALLEGED i D STRICKEN ON GROUNDS
DEFENDANT ADMITS VIOLATrW OF PROBATrON AND WAIVES HEARING—,—
STIPULATES
EARIN ,
STIPULATES TO PROBABLE CAUSE.
DEFENDANT 'ADVISED RE VC SECT. 2310 :.5 CONSEQUENCES. COURT FINDS VC2310c:
ALCOHOL RELATED. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FILES FORM TO SUBSTITUTE CHARGES.
FINDINGS AND PROBATION REFERRAL
PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS AND ORDERS" FORM FILED.
DEFENDANT ADVISED OF AND WAIVES RIGHT TO JURY TRIALCONFRONTATION
AND SELF INCRIMINATION AS MORE FULLY SET FORTH ON FACE-SENTENCE VOI'k
DIRE AND FINDINGS ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
DEFENDANT DOES NOT WANT COUNSEL. AFTER INQUIRY COURT FINDS DEFENDANT
KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVES RIGHT TO COUNSL HAVING BEEN ADVISED
OF DANGERS PITFALLS AND DISADVANTAGES OF SELF REPRESENTATION, AND
RIGHT TO APPOINTED HUNSEL IF INDIGENT.
DURT FINDS FACTUAL BASIS FOR PLEA(SUILTY ON PLEA OF NO CONTEST.
COURT FINDS DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION 0 ATION.
MATTER REFERRED TO PROBATION DEPARTME T OR PRE-SENTENCE REPORT.
PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT DETERMINATION OF RESTITUTION.
COURT FINDS DEFENDANT ABLE TO PAY COSTS—ITF APPOINTED COUNSEL IN THE
AMOUNT OF $
COURT FINDS TO PAY JAIL FEES OF $ PER DAY.
DEFENDANT/COUNSEL WAIVES STATUTORY TIME FOR PRONUUMLLMLNI tyr JUDGMENT.
COURT READ AND CONSIDERED THE PROBATION REPORT. DEFENDANT STATES
HE/SHE HAS READ REPORT.
EFENDANT/COUNSEL STATES THERE IS NO LEGAL CAUSE WHY JUDGMENT SHOULD
v NOT NOW BE PRONOUNCED.
FINE
FINE (C/T S DAYS @ $30/DAY) SUSPENDED.
DUE BY IF ACCOUNTING FEE %T57T30
I S OF $ PER MONTH
BEGINNING UNTIL PAIIfTA-FU=.
FORTHWITH ONE DAY FOR EACH $30.
OF FIRE-SUSPENDED FOR EACH HOUR OF COMMUNITY SERVICE SHOWN.
DEFERDANT TO SERVE TIME IN LIEU OF FINE.
PROBATION GRANT / COMMITMENT
PROBATION REVOKED REINSTATED MODIFIED TERMINATED
EXTENDED=
IMPOSITION= SENTENCE SUS
i1--5QF
YEARS/M814fomc.
CONDITIONAL SENTENCE FOR ISED PROBATION.
DAYS IN CUSTODY SUSPENDED.
DAYS IN CUSTODY (C/T/S DAYS) FORTHWITH
SERVE CONSECU DAYS IR=STODY.
STAY OF LALLUTIUN UNTIL AT M.
NEXT EVENT: COURT. ATE' TIME:
DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY, BAIL SET AT $RELEASED OR/BAIL
m.. 4 -nL
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
MISDEMEANOR ARRAIGNMENT MINUTE ORDER - CASE NUMBER: M000138250
VS COURT: SLD BRANCH - DIV. A
ALPHA, UPSILON / 001 DATE: 04/26/89 TIME: 0900
Vol 777 2zz, L
JUDGE: CLERK:
PROSECUTOR:
y,
L `IiEFENDANT PRESENT
DEFENSE COUNSEL: //l,// e 1'
pp /.>
Zd
w! %
DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT
COURT REPORTER: c J INT TYPE: NAME:
6/
DEFENDANTL'UST .
DEFENDANT FAILED TO APPEAR COURT ORDERS THE DEFENDANT'S
OWN RECOGNIZANCE RELEASE REVOKED PROBATION REVOKED
BAIL FORFEITED NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
CD RT ORDERS BENCH/ARREST WARRANT ISSUED—FOR DEFENDANT'S ARREST.
BAIL SET AT $POST & FORFEIT / MANDATORY APPEARANCE NO O.R.
WARRANT ORDERErl- ALLED//SET ASIDE.
BA L1#RDERED R T.
iD/
E ETED WIT TS F $
D FE A T IS INFO ED IN OPEN COURT OF THE RIGHTS SFO N
CASE NO. ARN 001/ADMONITION OF RIGHTS ON FILE AND INCORPORA ED
HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
DEFENDANT STATES HE/SHE UNDERSTOOD.
DEFENDANT ADVISED OF RIGHT TO PROBATION HEARING - PC1203.2(B) .
INDIVIDUAL ARRAIGNMENT
DEFENDANT APPEARING IN PROPRIA PERSONA GIVEN COPY OF COMPLAINT,
STATES TRUE NAME COMPLAINT AMENDED ACCORDINGLY.
DEFENDANT ADVISED OF THE CHARUES AND CONSEQUENCES, HAVING WAIVED
READING OF COMPLAINT.
PUBLIC DEFENDER APPOINTED DENIED BECAUSE DEFENDANT
HAS SUFFICIENT MORET-13R PROPERTY M-RETAIN COUNSEL.
IT APPEARING THERE IS A CONFLICT, ATTORNEY IS APPOINTED.
DEFENDANT DOES NOT WANT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. AFTER
INQUIRY THE COURT FINDS DEFENDANT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY
ANDVESDISADVANTAGESHT
TO OOFSSELF-REPRESENTATION,
SED
ANDORIGHTGTOSAPPOINTEDS'
COUNSEL IF INDIGENT.
DEFENDANT INDICATESCD1CT L WILL BE OBTAINED. (
DEFENDANT APPEARING ITH Y COUNSEL WAIVES REA
COMPLAINT AND FURTH ORMATION OFA CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
RIGHTS, AND ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF COPIES OF COMPLAINT AND DISCOVERY.
EFENDANT/ATTORNEY ENTERS PLEA OF:
GUILTY NO CONTEST
DENIES. PRIORS 19 DENIES ENHANCEMENT ALLEGATIONS
ATIWITTED VIOLATION OF PROBATION DENIES VIOLATION OF PROBATION
DEFENDANT WAIVES STATUTORY TIME FOR SENTENCING.
JURY TRIAL WAIVED BY:
DEFENDANT PERSONALLY DEFENSE ATTORNEY DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
COUNTS DISMISSED ON MOTION OF
DISTRICT AITURNEY/CUURT ON GROUNDS
DEFENDANT STIPULATES TO PROBABLE CAUSE VUH AKMt5l .
DEFENDANT MOVES TO BE RELEASED ON O.R. : GRANTED/DENIED.
MATTER REFERRED TO PROBATION DEPARTMENT (PC 1000/1000.6/ O.R. /
REPORT/PAIL REDUCTION/PRE-SENTENCE REPORT. )
DEFENDANT ORDERED TO BE BOOKED AND RELEASED WITHIN 7 DAYS.
DISCOVERY ORDER SIGNED AND FILED.
DEFENDANT REMANDED TO CUSTODY, BAIL SET AT $
RELEASED ON OWN RECOGNIZANCE / BAIL. (REV=S UW7. A3'E=890600^c0 )
NEXT EVENT: DATE: TIME: COURT:
LSL151-RO46 635
END OF REPORT
1 OS/81/89 SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL COURT LSL094-8012 '
REPEATER SHEET
DEFENDANT CASE # FILING COURT PROBATION CHARGE PLEA/
DATE BEGIN/END DISP
ALPHA, UPSILON DOB= S= R= H=W=H=E=
M000138250 03/28/89 M1 SLMC17.02.030
x ac POSITIVE MATCHES
POSSIBLE MATCHES x x
635
1
JUDGE:
Please sign if O.K.
Please advise.
A ,t - 1-n,.. L _ _ _D (. d-01 cx.,d 1 '7.e)-?- . 030
7. Z o3 0A o,41w--
Ile
Thank You: Date-g' d
I
I
I
1
Office of the City At.t.orno\,
2 CI"rY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Vicki J . Finucane ( 107.9791
3 990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100
4 San Luis Obispo. CA 93403-8100
Telephone: (805) 549-7140
5
7
8 IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE: STATE OF CAL IFORttl'AL
9 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
10 SAN LUIS OBISPO 'RANCH
11
rr
12 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.NO.
13 vs. 1 COMPLAINT-CRIMINAL
J1
1
14 ALPHA UPSILON. I Count 1
15 Defendant(s) .
16
17 VICKI J. FINUCANE. ACTING CITY ATTORNEY, of the San Luis Obispo City
18 Attorney's Office. complains and accuses defendant. ALPHA UPSILON. on
19 information and belief. of the crime described as follows:
20 Count 1 : On or about the 26th day of February. 1989. at and in the
21 City of San Luis Obispo. County of San Luis Obispo. State of California,
22 defendant did commit a misdemeanor, a violation of San Luis Obispo Municipal
23 Code §17.02.030 and §17.02.010. i .e. , did wilfully use or cause or permit to
24 be used a structure in the City of San Luis Obispo in violation of zoning
25 regulations, to-wit: use of 720 and 72G Foothill as a fraternity without
26 appropriate use permit. all of which is contrary to the statute in such cases
27 made and provided. and against the peace and dignity` of the People of the
28
C1 State of California. /
2 On this 1 /-riay of Murch. 1989. in the City ut' San Luis Obispo.
3 California. certify under penalty of perjury that r.he foregoing is true and
4 correct .
5
6
Vicki .1. Fin' ane
7 F.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo. CA 93403-8100
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
1\
1
Office of the City Attorne%
2 (:ITY OF SAN LITS OBISPO
Vicki J. Finucane ( 1079791
3 990 Palm Street
P. 0. Box 8100
4 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-81n0
Telephone: (805) 549-71,40
5
6
7
8 MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
10 SAN LUIS OBISPO BRANCH
11
12 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE. OF CALIFORNIA. 0.
13 vs. DECLARATION IN SUPPORT
14 ALPHA UPSILON.
OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
15 Defendant(s) .
16
17 THE UNDERSIGNED hereby declares:
18 THAT I am now employed as a Police Officer for the CITY OF SAN LUIS
19 OBISPO, in the Courity of San Luis Obispo, State of California.
20 THAT an investigation has been conducted to determine if defendant.
21 ALPHA UPSILON, did commit the crime of MISDEMEANOR: violation of §17.02.030
22 and-.§ 17.449.010 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (use of structure in
23 violation of zoning regulations) .
24 YOUR DECLARANT has reviewed the report of this investigation and
25 declares upon information and belief that the facts herein show probable
26 cause that the aforementioned fraternity did commit the hereinbefore stated
27 crime.
28
THE AVESTIGATION REPORT is WW"hed hereLo in Support or this
deciaratiun and is incorporatev by reference herein . your deciarant Lherefore
3 Mqumsts rhe issuance of a warrant or arrest, if der"nHant duns not appear
4 voluntarily in response to appearancQ letter .
5 1 declare under penalty "f p"rjury that An foregoing is true and
6 correct .
7 DATED: J. 2 7 1989 . San Luis Obispo. CQUornia.
8
9
DecFarant 1 . S . Parkinson
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
San Luis Obispo PoliceTDepartment
DR 89060020
Report Date: 03-08-89 Report ID# 68654.A67867 IN 68654
Date. Time
SECTION OFFENSE DESCRIPTION OCC.ON: 02-26-89 12: 00
CO MISC CITY ORDINANCES or BTWN:
17.02.030 MC REPORTED: 03-01-89 14 :.29
FELONY ( ) MISDEMEANOR (X) TYPE OF REPORT OFFICE
CONNECTING REPORTS:
FIELD ( ) INF ( ) PHONE X3
DETAILS OF CRIME
MO: NIGHT TIME, LOUD NOISE
Motive: CREATE DISTURB, PARTY
Location: 720 FOOTHILL
Type Premises: SINGLE RES
Type Property:
Veh used by S/:
ADDITIONAL PEOPLE INVOLVED
CODE: V=Vict, W=Wit, C=Comp, P=Parent, G=Guardian, S -Subj , S=Susp
Code: RP Name: DOB-
1dr: CSZ SIA CAL-'
Age: Sex: Race: HP: ( ) WP:
Eyes: Hair: Wt: Ht: el /
Emp: OWNER APT COMPLEX A
g: 6ZB:cCode: W1 Name•
Addr: CSZ• SLO, CA
Age: 23 Sex: Race: HP: ( ) WP:
Eyes: Hair: Wt: Ht:
Veh; u -
Emp: APT MGR AW
Code: W2 Name
ry ----------
DOB:
Addr: CSZ: SLO, CA' i.P
Age: 21 Sex: Race: HP: ( ) WP: ,
Eyes: Hair: Wt: Ht:
Emp: APT MGR AKA:
The Details can be found on a Continuation Sheet attached to this report.
sor ID#RepoVting Officer(s) ID Assmt. Rep. O f. Signature
Parkinson,I. S. 6767 P
Assigned to: ID# Assmt. Date/Time Processed by D Clk
her action Yes No
spies to: DOJect3Ve _ Patrolle A$C Other SO/PD
Case Disp. Except _arrest Unfounded Active
SA JIS OBISPO DISTRICT ATTOI
PROMIS WITNESS LIST
SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT CASE # : 89060020 D.A. #
LAW ENFORCEMENT WITNESSES
NAME: Parkinson, I. S.SLOPD 67867
OTHER WITNESSES
1 Name: DOB: Addr:
Sex: Race: HP: WP: CSZ : SLO, CA
WT RTS INT Y N SUBPOENA INSTR. R B 1 2 3 4 $
2 Name: DOB: Addr:
Sex: Race: HP: WP: CSZ SIA CA
T
WT RTS INT Y N SUBPOENA INSTR. R B 1 2 3 4 5
3 Name:
WP: CSZ SLO, CA
WT RTS INT Y N SUBPOENA INSTR. R B 1 2 3 4 5
OSAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT
CA0400600
CRIME REPORT
89060020
SOURCE:
On 3/1/89 at approx 1429 hrs, I was dispatched to 140 Ferrini #9,
regarding SUB/s at that location desiring to file a complaint
against nearby fraternity.
PROBABLE CAUSE STATEMENT.:
Upon arrival, I contacted the RP/ W/ and
W/ who is the property owner, and
and who are the property mgrs, stated they have
been having a problem with the fraternity Alpha Upsilon, located
at 720 Foothill. They stated they've had continuous noise
problems, party problems, and they are continually disturbing the
occupants of their apts. They stated they have talked with
numerous people regarding this problem which included talking to
the attorney, PD, Planning Dept, and City Council members. They
stated last time the fraternity had a rush week, they held all
their rush parties at their location, 720 Foothill. They stated
they talked about this with the City and the City stated they
would no longer be holding their parties there w/o a use permit.
stated last time they announced on their flyer that the
parties would be held at that location and subsequent to that
they complained to the City about it.
They said this time they got ahold of one of the rush bulletins
and it stated that the locations of the last 4 events would be to
be announced. He stated the first event that was marked to be
announced was Sunday, 26th, and that was held at the fraternity,
720 Foothill. They took several photos of that incident, and in
the photos showed rush signs on the lawn and beer signs
throughout the yard. He stated they were extremely loud,
partying and drinking throughout the night and later on the
evening took 2 kegs of beer and climbed over through their
property, leaving.
He stated that last night, Tuesday, 2/28, the event was noted to
be to be announced, was also held at the residence.
All 3 SUB/s stated this is an on-going problem and the fraternity
has found a way to circumvent the City's use permits and is still
having their fraternity rushes and parties at the residence. They
requested that a rpt be written and they strongly request a
Ocomplaint against the fraternity.
1
1
CSAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT
CA0400600
CRIME REPORT
89060020
I requested that Of. HUBBARD on night watch attempt to photograph.
any possible rush parties that evening. The reason for this was
they indicated on their flyer that they were intending to have
another one that evening. The following day I talked with Of.
HUBBARD who advised that there was a function happening at the
residence. He advised he observed SUB/s inside the residence and
2 SUB/s standing out front near the front door. He stated the
SUB/s out front were dressed in coat and tie and had some
clipboard and appeared to be checking off names as people
arrived. He stated there was no noise violation; however, he did
take several photographs from me of the event. The film was
retained by myself and submitted to Tech KLASEY for developing.
DISPOSITION•
Active. Submit to .City Attorney for complaint.
PARKINSON, 67867, AF, 3/8/891 1030 hrs
i
2
JUDITH LAUTNER
0.s ate Planner Planning Division Tp Fl /1r er
AV
D "
ll
C
RI. ,
1Gfthi'
alii city of 62n,,
san Luis oBispo ffiucz CAIeF
Community Oevelopment Departm m•(805)549-7166
990 Palm St.•P.O.Box 8100•San Luis Obispo,CA 9340.9.8100
City of San Luis Obispo RcCEIVct7
Planning Department
990 Palm St. OCT a 1988
San Luis Obispo.Ca 93401
u.1twWc
Co^'ortr
Dear Planning Staff.
This lener is concerning Alpha Upsilon Fraternity's recent purchase of the property
located at 720 and 726 Foothill Boulevard. It has been our full intention from the start to
obtain muse permit to function at this property. This was also was a major factor in our
decision to purchase the properly. We feel this location is ideal for a fraternity use due to its
zoning(R-4),proximity to Cal-Poly,and its relationship to surrounding properties.
We have bees actively working towards submitting a use permit application and
recently met with City Planning Director.Mike Multari.to discuss our possible options. Our
housing committee is currently consulting with architects on the development plans for this
parcel. In this process we hope to mitigate neighborhood concerns such as noise and parking.
There recently has been a great deal of concern over publications announcing rush
functions at this address. These flyers were printed before we realised all the problems with
holding fraternity functions at this location. This problem.has been corrected.and we fully
intend to hold no functions at this address.
We are confident that we can work with the neighborhood and the city to reach a
positive solution fora fraternity use of the property. We will inform you of the progress on
our application.and weencourage you to call us with any concerti you may have.
Sincerely.
G
Scott Moran
Vice-President
Alph Upsilon Fraternity
r
James Hendrickson
Housing Chairman
Alpha Upsilon Fraternity
i t
Gln r c 71-7r
t4si fri, j. !dVjr L w. r F
ZA p pt-t tT t?n t
UpGrS n.:'e=tIC a t i r cl the nr-j sE 1 i ound two me.r.,
process of. fwDvinj 5eE-r k ea over the apartment
fence. I aSl:led `171efll whtaL the wered.--.i-ng and they -aj d that
they wers '-Ip!-la pi and h-ad to take the ker's.
one PrCdLt:-G-d hi S P. e:lcjg,c: 1 z-xplained to therr, tt-.at
they Uiej.r terl-.1ty pralli.-:s on OLl.r pro,pert.,, ,
h a t i ,4 1 tenant=:nd that 'hev werea
r e s p a s=-I n C; T er: Asked tlhu.-m to re move the kegs From our
r cipert•,.-. r-p , Led could not: thev were
Cl Q L' 1-1 C:
w-ith their F.ot
and
cz,.
arried the kegs across
std n-Ut tc the stree-.
1
O
m C Cl-
c) oZ o 0 0QO6Nr-- 00 00
J co y
Au
cacc
1
m
cz czUUUW ,' p
I i _0
T
co
U '' N
M
LU
LU
LJL
LL
w
C4
o o z a
z
Cf) o
LU
H Cl) F- UL
r, .
Budde udKeiser
J,
10
13
e
1
3
17.02.010-17.02.050
Division I. Zoning Code B. Zone District Boundaries.
1. Boundaries between zoning districts gen-
erally follow lot lines or their extensions, phys-
Chapter 17.02 ical features, or contour lines, as noted on the
official zoning map. Boundaries adjoining
GENERAL PROVISIONS streets shall be assumed to follow the centerlines
of streets if such location becomes an issue in the
Sections: use of private property,as when a street is aban-
17.02.010 Title. doned. Zones which meet a street centerline
17.02.020 Purpose. shall not be considered "adjacent."
17.02.030 General requirement. 2. The location of boundaries which are not
17.02.040 Interpretation. readily determined by inspection of the official
17.02.050 General plan consistency—zone map shall be determined by the director.
Regulations interpretation and C. Conflict with Public Provisions. These
application. regulations are not intended to interfere with or
annul any other law or regulation. Where these
17.02.010 Title. regulations impose a restriction different from
This division shall be known and cited as the any other law or regulation,the more restrictive
zoning regulations of the city." (Ord. 941 § I shall apply.
part), 1982: prior code § 9201.1) D. Conflict with Private Provisions. These
regulations are not intended to interfere with or
17.02.020 Purpose. annul any easement, covenant, or other agree-
These regulations are intended to guide the ment between private parties. Where these reg-
development of the city in an orderly manner, ulations impose a restriction different from a
based on the adopted general plan, to protect private agreement, the provisions which are
and enhance the quality of the natural and built more restrictive or which impose higher stand-
environment,and to promote the public health, rds shall control.(Ord.941§ I(part), 1982:prior
safety and general welfare by regulating the use code§ 9204.5)
of land and buildings and the location and basic
form of structures. (Ord. 941 § 1 (part), 1982: 17.02.050 General plan consistency—
prior code§ 9201.2) Regulations interpretation and
application.
17.02.030 General requirement. The regulations codified in this title shall be
Land or buildings may be used and structures i nterpreted and applied in a.manner consistent
may be erected or altered only in accordance with the general plan.(Ord.941 § I (part), 1982:
with these regulations.(Ord.941§ I (part), 1982: prior code § 9204.1)
prior code§ 9201.5)
17.02.040 Interpretation.
A. Ambiguity. The director shall interpret
these regulations, subject to the appeal pro-
cedures of Chapter 17.66. Written requests for
interpretation shall be responded to in writing
within ten days and shall become part of the
permanent files of the community development
Jdepartment.
425 s Luis Obispo 7.94)
iu 4 I!Iiil lll hllul'li!!I 'I Cit sAn Luis oBispoy
6
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
805) 549-7140
March 28, 1989
Scott Morar,
Vice President
Alpha upsilon Fraternity
720 Foothill Blvd.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Violation of Municipal Code §§. 17.02.030 and 17.02.010
Gentlemen:
This is to advise you that a compinint has been filed against the
Alpha upsilon Fraternity in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Court, Criminal
Division, for violation of the above-.referenced code sections. Your
arraignment has been scheduled for Wednesday, April 26. 1989, at 9:00 a.m.
in the Municipal Court. Division A. at 1050 Monterey Street. San Luis
Obispo. Please plan to have a representitive of Alpha Upsilon present at
that time.
Please cal1 if you have any. questions .
Very truly yours .
Vicki J. rucane
Acting City Attorney
VJF:sw
Enclosure.
cc: Municipal Court-Criminal Division
F-1 :arraign]
IIE, THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST THAT - THE USE PER24IT FOR THEOALPHAUPSILONFRATERNITYBEDENIEDAT720 & 726 FOOTHILL BLVD.
AS RESIDENTS IN THE IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED AREA, idE ARE CONCERNED
THAT THE COMMISSION WILL GRANT THE USE PERI4IT WITHOUT FULL
CONSIDERATION AND AWARENESS OF THE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS OF
LOCATING THIS FRATERNITY IN AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE ARE REQUESTING THE CITY TO CONTACT US INDIVIDUALLY OR WIT
A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FRATERNITY PRESENT TO DISCUSS OUR CONCERN;
ALSO, 1,1E NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FRATERNITY' S NEIGHBOR .
PLAN OR POLICY BEFORE THE USE IS GRANTED IF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THI
PLANNING COMMISSION GO AHEAD' WITH THE GRANTING. OF THE USE PERMIT.
WE ARE REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSIi
TO REQUIRE SOUND PROOFING OR SOME SORT OF SOUND BARRIERS ALONG THE
ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES TO KEEP THE NOISE FROM BOUNCING OFF THE
STUCCO WALLS- OF THE SURROUNDING APARTMENT HOUSES.
WE ARE REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCT A STUDY OF
TRAFFIC FLOW SINCE CURRENTLY THE STREET AREA IN FRONT OF THIS SITEISAREDZONE.
C WE ARE REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSIC
LIMIT THE NUMBER OF INVITED GUESTS; LIMIT THE HOURS OF SOCIAL
FUNCTIONS SO AS TO NOT GO PAST 8P.M. ; RESTRICT THE SITE TO ONE SOCIAEVENTPERMONTH; REQUEST THE FRATERNITY TO PROVIDE THE CITY COUNCIL
AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH ITS DETAILED POLICY OF HOW IT
INTENDS TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH THE NEIGHBORS, HOW IT WILL
POLICE ITS SOCIAL EVENTS SO ONLY INVITED GUEST ATTEND; HOW IT
INTENDS TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOOD FREE OF LITTER AFTER THE PARTIES;
AND HOW IT INTENDS TO KEEP UNDERAGE PERSONS FROM OBTAINING LIQUOR
OR ALCOHOL AT ITS SOCIAL EVENTS.
WE BELItVE THESE ISSUES REMAIN AND HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY
ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES. AS SUCH ldE REQUEST_THE PERMIT BE DENIED.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
777
s-
OlLI-E PR p
140 Fai7-h 1 7
T e,,cl/ll f' 104', 1
NAME ADDRESS
C
DATE
G Sw-..(_ Yu i.c..t...t >" +f#'lZ SC . C-•- O —J d'-
8 -r-gi
f
E•:r;1 1; tz
7 f- SLC 4r
azo
04
r
q
Lc
14y 4(2-
2
Z
1
Ai 140 a, o C 6
706 F,>- ILI
04ol1V40 're ( o
Lo
IYC `ei fini # l SLC/
r I r L i ,
Cj, . lEc I I
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST THAT 'THE USE PERMIT FOR THE
C' ALPHA UPSILON FRATERNITY BE DENIED AT 720 & 726 FOOTHILL BLVD.
AS RESIDENTS IN THE IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED AREA, IvT ARE CONCERNED
THAT THE COMMISSION WILL GRANT THE USE PERMIT WITHOUT FULL
CONSIDERATION AND AWARENESS OF THE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS OF
LOCATING THIS FRATERNITY IN AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD..
WE ARE REQUESTING THE CITY TO CONTACT US INDIVIDUALLY OR WIT'
A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FRATERNITY PRESENT TO DISCUSS OUR CONCERN!
ALSO, WE NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FRATERNITY' S NEIGHBOR
PLAN OR POLICY BEFORE THE USE IS GRANTED IF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THI
PLANNING COMMISSION GO AHEAD' WITH THE GRANTING OF THE USE PERMIT.
WE ARE REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING .COMMISSI(
TO REQUIRE SOUND PROOFING OR SOME SORT OF SOUND BARRIERS ALONG THE
ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES TO KEEP THE NOISE FROM BOUNCING OFF THE
STUCCO WALLS OF THE SURROUNDING APARTMENT HOUSES.
WE ARE REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCT A STUDY OF
TRAFFIC FLOW SINCE CURRENTLY THE STREET AREA IN FRONT OF THIS SITE
IS A RED ZONE.
WE ARE REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLAN14ING COMMISSIC
LIMIT THE NUMBER OF INVITED GUESTS ; LIMIT THE HOURS OF SOCIAL
FUNCTIONS SO AS TO NOT GO PAST 8P ,M. ; RESTRICT THE SITE TO ONE SOCIA
EVENT PER MONTH; REQUEST THE FRATERNITY TO PROVIDE THE CITY COUNCIL
AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH ITS DETAILED POLICY OF HOW IT
INTENDS TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH THE NEIGHBORS, HOW IT WILL
POLICE ITS SOCIAL EVENTS SO ONLY INVITED GUEST ATTEND ; HOW IT
INTENDS TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOOD FREE OF LITTER AFTER THE PARTIES;
AND HOW IT INTENDS TO KEEP UNDERAGE PERSONS FROM OBTAINING LIQUOR
OR ALCOHOL AT ITS SOCIAL EVENTS.
WE BELItVE THESE ISSUES REMAIN AND HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY
ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES. AS SUCH WE REQUEST
THE PERMIT BE DENIED.
NAP4E ADDRESS DATE
eic
j'
Ir
S i
r
moi----
NAME ADDRESS DATE
G
C
OWE, THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST THAT -THE USE PERMIT FOR THE
ALPHA UPSILON 'FRATERNITY BE DENIED AT 720 & 726 FOOTHILL BLVD.
AS RESIDENTS IN THE IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED AREA, 11E ARE CONCERNED
THAT THE COMMISSION WILL GRAIJT THE USE PER24IT WITHOUT FULL
CONSIDERATION AND AWARENESS OF THE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS OF
LOCATING THIS FRATERNITY IN AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE ARE REQUESTING THE CITY TO CONTACT US INDIVIDUALLY OR WI]
A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE FRATERNITY PRESENT TO DISCUSS OUR CONCERN
ALSO, WE NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FRATERNITY ' S NEIGHBOR .
PLAN OR POLICY BEFORE THE USE IS GRANTED IF THE CITY COUIICIL AND TE
PLANNING COMMISSION GO AHEAD' WITH THE GRANTING OF THE USE PL•RMIT.
WE ARE REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING .COMMISS]
TO REQUIRE SOUND PROOFING OR SOME SORT OF SOUND BARRIERS ALONG THE
ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES TO KEEP THE NOISE FROM BOUNCING OFF THE
STUCCO WALLS- OF THE SURROUNDING APARTMENT HOUSES.
WE ARE REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCT A STUDY OF
TRAFFIC FLOW SINCE CURRENTLY THE STREET AREA IN FRONT OF THIS SITE
IS A RED ZONE.
WE ARE REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSI
LIMIT THE NUMBER OF INVITED GUESTS ; LIMIT THE HOURS OF SOCIAL
FUNCTIONS SO AS TO NOT GO PAST 8P .M. ; RESTRICT THE SITE TO ONE SOCI:
EVENT PER MONTH; REQUEST THE FRATERNITY TO PROVIDE THE CITY COUNCII
AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH ITS DETAILED POLICY OF HOW IT
INTENDS TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH THE NEIGHBORS, HOW IT WILL
POLICE ITS SOCIAL EVENTS SO ONLY INVITED GUEST ATTEND; HOW IT'
INTENDS TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOOD FREE OF LITTER AFTER THE PARTIES;
AND HOW IT INTENDS TO KEEP UNDERAGE PERSONS FROM OBTAINING LIQUOR
OR ALCOHOL AT ITS SOCIAL EVENTS.
WE BELIEVE THESE ISSUES REMAIN AND HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY
ADDRESS BY THE APPLICANT OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES. AS SUCH WE REQUEST
THE PERMIT BE DENIED.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
7-8
rlAz y
y
42
C
IAI
I I
NAME ADDRESS DATE
C j
i
L'Il z ti r, c l 7- y
i
V`t
r • if
C
f
y
4
T 1lotif l
ice
i •` ICt
i
BU/L DING IY BU/L PIN
v
O
CAS
a
V
o
J\ V
so'Q
V Y
rh
ti
2
N
P
jTV 1
I
R V\
m lr
s
0
Y
v I
N
N y
A
v V t
J
ASPNALT
75'
i
ait F A
z+4
v
z+a --
r
FOO 7// / Z- L BL VO.
N B'1'55'E --_
r
r
O
O
a
oZ z
r
3
c o
r QZ
g
F
r
0
z
V '
O
O
r
l
ffcp
P w
i
r
I
P
I _ ----- D'--...--- --- Tom•
tit
r
1-
fIN
1
rn
JH
Y t 1 WEHNO,/,&TION cF THE It NCS cr PRELIMINARY rFF1rFErAE4aJcu c l
Pt-PHr UP51Lak1 Pr'•Ct117 EGT
rout r 0fA={ ..i.. uc 4-C,11.40,1
4 '" oto FaV7WILIr'jLvr7
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION rxou!2-T fL--1 CPJ i-
q 1
5 w e ar3lEf' G>uFcp rJla a 1 JOE cr 9612N1
fit' 74-r .>._v__.. .\.-
0
1
t
q Fill
y
r
a
Y/IY.•
di 9
1
0 1
1 L
l
trn
a
i
r .c
fL
a
1
t
t •
it
s
rAEWQCV T1 0 THE PLi-fl;rJfQC4 of NRELIP AINARY PFEPr c T eo j;
1 a 1
uu¢ r-ervwoq f• 1at14'!s1 \ 1
s 1Cr fOR CONSTRU:T(0X20cCjHILL ' .. N 3 1 F
O
Y co, IsI 1• ; )..4.x :••1
SN.I LUQ G7N,;5pJ G I.FGF 11I t9) Gse 495u
iu i uiallahlilillll III i N iip I City Of SiAn lolls OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I. Chapter
1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of TWa uC 4 PL4+1-aj rendered
on AkkbUST cly.tgb9 which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed) :
AT%A '; LMti,A(a CCAAW'9ors
fl Tcn.L i I.1C. c P WFE PEZMST .
r,Tacz+lJzy , ir.c _ P,C.S 1 ts `aS ota toccouNos
UAMIL
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
on
Appellant:
Name/Title
RECEIVED Representative
AUG 1 8 19814 rte F' TF4 U_ awo
Address
CITY CLERK
5W4 _ 9?67-SAN LUIS 081SP0,CA
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
lend red r: Copy to City Administrative Officer
CopyLto he foil Qwlndepartment(s)
City Clerk
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Saturday, May 17, 2025 10:57 AM
To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Cc:Mezzapesa, John
Subject:Re: Alpha Epsilon Pi - 280 California
Thank you, Timmi. It would be great to hear from you.
I have a question, and maybe John has the answer, so I'm copying him on this email. On what date were the
fraternities notified that there would be a re-review of their CUPs? (Also, which fraternities are being re-
reviewed?) I spoke about this briefly with John at the Community Forum in January, so I'm aware that it was in
the works then, but it would be helpful to know the exact date they were notified.
Would you be able to provide me with a copy of the notification that was sent to each of the fraternity properties
per the CPRA?
Foremost, I want you to know that I recognize that the "fraternity problem" is something you inherited (unfairly,
in my opinion, because the City knew it was happening but looked the other way). I also realize that the situation
is made more complicated because Cal Poly is not cooperating with the City to solve the problem, and in fact, is
enabling it to continue. I also know it is going to take an enormous effort to fix the problem. I think you are doing
an amazing job as Community Development Director! You have a ton on your plate with the housing issues
alone. I hope you aren't discouraged by my persistence. I also appreciate John and give him a lot of credit for his
hard work on this problem, while having a lot of other responsibilities in his role as a Building Official.
I was not able to attend the SCLC meeting on Thursday, but heard from another Representative that the IFC
President, Colin Shea, gave a presentation about the process for other fraternity chapters to become
recognized at Cal Poly. There are some new fraternities that will be joining the 19 current fraternities soon.
Whitney McDonald asked the Cal Poly Greek Life administrator, Jason Mockford, if the fraternities needed to
have a house lined up in a legal location before they were approved for recognition, and Jason told her that Cal
Poly is not concerned about the fraternity's housing. I was told that Whitney McDonald wasn't happy about that
and expressed her frustration.
Whitney also pushed SCLC to adopt the initiative to end St. Fratty's Day in the neighborhood at the beginning of
this academic year, even though there was significant pushback from Cal Poly to resist adopting that initiative. I
am an alternate SCLC Representative for the Geographical Neighborhoods, and was serving that day, so I was
able to speak in support of Whitney by citing Chief Scott's statements last year that stopping St. Fratty's must be
led by Cal Poly and the student community. The Chair (ASI President) reluctantly added solving the issue to the
list of initiatives for the year.
At that point, nobody knew that the Grand Jury was investigating a complaint about the fraternities and St.
Fratty's Day. The Grand Jury has finished its report now, and it will be released soon, so I don't think it's a secret
anymore. I haven't been able to tell anyone about the investigation while it was ongoing, and it will be a relief to
have the report made public. To be honest, there was no significant action around solving the St. Fratty's Day
problem until people started getting called in to be interviewed by the Grand Jury. I noticed a substantial shift in
tone and action once those interviews started. I am tempted to file a complaint about the illegal fraternities in
July when the new Grand Jury is empaneled because it seems that may be the only way to expedite a solution.
2
The problem is getting worse every year, and new fraternities are being approved and will likely move into our
neighborhood. It has to stop.
I look forward to hearing from you and to making progress toward an overall solution to this problem. Please
forward the notifications sent to the fraternities regarding the re-reviews of the CUPs whenever you can. Thank
you so much for all of your effort.
Sincerely,
Kathie
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 4:56 PM Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Kathie,
Thank you, I have received this and the subsequent email. I will need to circle back with staff who have been
looking into the various frat issues and will get back to you next week. I may give you a call as well to discuss.
In the meantime, and I am sure you are aware, that several CUPs will be at planning commission on May 28 for
re-review. The staff reports will be available next week and I will make sure this group is notified when they are
posted.
Thank you, and I hope you have a nice weekend.
Timmi
From: kathie walker < >
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2025 3:42:42 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>
Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < ;
Stewjenkins Info <
Subject: Re: Alpha Epsilon Pi - 280 California
Hi Timmi,
I'm following up on the email I sent on 4/17/2025 regarding Alpha Epsilon Pi's CUP.
On Wednesday, 4/16/2025, a noise citation was issued at 10:55 PM with 150 people listed at the fraternity
event. This event violates multiple conditions of the fraternity's CUP at 280 California Blvd and constitutes a
public nuisance, per the SLOMC. It is especially egregious because there were 150 people, six times the
maximum occupancy of 25 people legally allowed by the fraternity's CUP.
3
On Friday, 4/18/2025, a noise citation was issued at 10:11 PM with 100 people listed at the fraternity
event. This event violates multiple conditions of the fraternity's CUP at 280 California Blvd. and exceeds the
maximum occupancy limit of 25 by 75 people, or four times the limit.
Condition 4 states that the maximum occupancy cannot exceed 25 people. It also states that a
transportation management plan is required for events that exceed 25 people.
Condition 9 states that the fraternity shall comply with the City's noise ordinance.
Condition 12 says that the permit may be revoked if the fraternity fails to comply with any of the conditions or
code requirements, or the conduct is a violation of the law, or constitutes a public nuisance or causes adverse
impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity.
During the Planning Commission hearing on 11/13/2024, there was significant discussion about Condition
12. Commissioners confirmed that a noise violation is a "public nuisance" according to the city's municipal
code. 9.12.010 defines a noise violation as a "public nuisance".
4
At the conclusion of the hearing, it was the understanding of the Commissioners that the fraternity would
return to the Planning Commission if there was a single violation of the noise ordinance.
Commissioner Tolle made the following comment:
At 1:17:24: Commissioner Tolle: "Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that the Applicant is aware that if another violation
occurs, you’re going to be right back in here and we’re going to have to do this all over again. I get it. I understand frat life.
But you’re in a neighborhood. You’re not out in a Greek Row. That’s what’s before us today. So I just want to make that
clear because I feel that the conditions aren’t that strict, as far as repercussions are concerned, so the only thing that we
can lean on is that you will be back here if it happens again."
In my email on 4/17/2025, I said that during the hearing on 11/13/2024, the Commissioners discussed the
terms of the CUP, and they warned the fraternity members that if the fraternity gets a single citation, the
Commissioners wanted the CUP to be revisited. I asked what action you would take regarding the matter.
You responded that you would review with Code Enforcement, look at the CUP, and the hearing record
from 11/13/2024.
At the time of my email, the fraternity had only received one citation with 150 people. That event violated
multiple conditions of the CUP. After my email, the fraternity received the second citation with 100 people,
which also violated multiple conditions of the CUP.
I have not heard back from you.
Based on the multiple violations of the conditions of the CUP, I believe the fraternity should go back to the
Planning Commission, as was stated by the Commissioners on 11/13/2024. Would you please let me know
what actions have or are going to be taken to resolve this issue?
Thank you and have a great weekend.
-Kathie
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Saturday, May 17, 2025 4:00 PM
To:CityClerk
Subject:Public Records Request
Attachments:Public Records Request - City Early Removal Program.pdf
City Clerk,
I have attached the City's form requesting the following information and records at your earliest convenience:
All applications, all approvals, and all denials for the City of San Luis Obispo's "Early Removal Program" from
1/1/2020 to 5/17/2025. According to the City's website, this City program allows SLOPD to remove a property
that has received Disturbance Advisement Cards or noise citations from the "no warning" list, and provides new
tenants with a clean slate.
The contact person listed on the City's website is Christine Wallace.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Thank you,
Kathie Walker
Updated 05/2023 City of San Luis Obispo
Request for Public Records
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: _______________________________________________ Date: ______________________
Last First
Address: ________________________________________________________________________
Street & Unit # City State Zip
Email: _____________________________________________ Phone: _______________________
Release Forms
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 HIP AA 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 Request Architect/Engineer Authorization
o Plan Request Owner Authorization
Continued
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 lega l
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.
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.
Date and Time: Specify the incident date or date and time range of the requested records
Questions may be directed to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100.
Submit Completed Forms To:
cityclerk@slocity.org
OR
City Clerk’s Office
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 11:57 AM
To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John; Patino, Mallory
Subject:PC Hearing for Delta Chi & Sigma Nu on 5/28, Comments and Parties
Attachments:Delta Chi history.pdf; Sigma Nu history.pdf
Hi Timmi,
Yesterday, there were some posts on YikYak about fraternities, and someone posted a photo of Notices they'd
received in the mail. One of the commenters said, "Lfg (let's f--king go), parties gonna be louder and bigger than
ever."
This is the general attitude our neighborhoods near Cal Poly have faced for the past few years. The fraternities
do not care about the city's rules or how their noisy fraternity parties affect their neighbors.
Last weekend, my husband Steve worked night shift (7:30 PM - 8 AM) from Thursday to Sunday. I think you know
he's an EMS helicopter pilot and needs to get adequate sleep between his shifts so he can be safe to fly his
medical crew and patients. He relies on getting sleep from mid-morning until he wakes up at around 5 PM. He'd
had a particularly traumatic flight involving a 3-year-old boy and had a hard time getting to sleep, so was
distressed when the parties woke him that day.
2
On Saturday, we could hear yelling and music from parties. The most disruptive thing for Steve was that the
bass in the music was reverberating in our home, keeping him awake. He asked me to find the party and call it
in. (He did not want to get out of bed and go into the sunlight, which would make it difficult to get back to sleep.)
I thought the party might be on 'frat row' on Foothill because that's usually where the daytime noise comes
from, but the noise was coming from behind Foothill on Monte Vista. I didn't feel comfortable taking a video
because there were so many people in front yards and on the street, so I drove onto Cal Poly's campus and
observed the party at Delta Chi at 1236 Monte Vista Place. I took a short video. I was about 150 away from the
source of the noise, and a large, inflatable water slide is visible in the video, with people sitting on the balcony
above it at 1236 Monte Vista.
I called in the party to SLOPD, and it was cleared as a Negative Violation. It's common for SLOPD not to enforce
the noise ordinance, especially with daytime parties, even though they violate the SLOMC 9.12, which is
especially frustrating when sleep is necessary during the day. The SLOMC states that a "noise disturbance" is
prohibited to be clearly audible at 50 feet from the noisemaker, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The city has
declared that a noise violation is considered a "public nuisance".
I wanted to make you aware of the party at Delta Chi, 1236 Monte Vista Pl, on Saturday, 5/16/2025, and have
attached a video.
Delta Chi also had a party on St. Fratty's Day, 3/15/2025, and was issued a citation at around 4 AM. Cal Poly
prohibited their Greek organizations from hosting parties on St. Fratty's Day, and said the fraternity or sorority
would be suspended if they held a party. Delta Chi and Sigma Nu planned to have parties that morning, but
Sigma Nu cancelled theirs a few days beforehand.
Delta Chi's citation for the party listed 100 people, which is a violation of the maximum occupancy of 53 listed in
its CUP. The City sent the citation to Cal Poly, and Delta Chi was facing suspension, but they appealed to the
Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities (OSRR). They claimed that they hadn't hosted a party and that 100
3
people stampeded their fraternity, knocked down fences, and caused the mayhem that led to the noise
citation.
In fact, the fraternity did plan to host a party that morning and painted a banner beforehand that hung in their
courtyard that said "Get Lucky" "St. Fratty's 2025" with Delta Chi's Greek letters in a four-leaf clover. There were
videos posted on TikTok that showed the party very early in the morning on 3/15/2025 (2 AM) and later (3 AM)
when a large crowd was in the courtyard, standing around, dancing, conversing, and drinking. There was no
panic or concern on anyone's face and no "stampede" as claimed by J ason Mockford, the Cal Poly administrator
who oversees the Greek Life. Nevertheless, Cal Poly's OSRR bought the story and did not hold Delta Chi
responsible for hosting the party on 3/15/2025.
Jason Mockford defended Delta Chi during an SCLC meeting in April. I am an alternate Representative on SCLC
and was in the audience, but not able to speak because I was not sitting at the table. I wrote an email to the
committee members afterward and will forward it to you so you understand the complete picture. Essentially,
Delta Chi was not held accountable, and everyone at SCLC (the mayor, city manager, etc.) probably believed
Mr. Mockford's story about the fraternity being stampeded by outsiders. If there weren't videos showing
otherwise, no one would know the truth.
If Delta Chi had been suspended, they would no longer be in good standing and would have lost their
Conditional Use Permit per SLOMC 17.86.130A.3.
I sent a report last week for the fraternity parties held over a weekend last month. Sigma Nu and Delta Chi each
held parties during that weekend. I've attached the pages from my report related to Sigma Nu and Delta Chi. It
includes the noise complaints to SLOPD from last academic year (2023-2024) and this academic year (2024-
2025).
One of the biggest red flags is that these fraternities were aware that they would be appearing before the
Planning Commission for a re-review of their CUPs, yet held huge, noisy parties in violation of their CUPs.
Sigma Nu had fenced off their front yard and covered the fence with tarps to hide parties in their front yard.
Since they became aware of the PC hearing, there were noise complaints on 2/22/2025, 2/28/2025, 3/1/2025,
and 4/19/2025. Of those, three received noise citations with 80-100 people. Sigma Nu had many noise citations
before that, but what stands out is that they knew they would have to plead their case to the City at a hearing,
and still held these huge, noisy parties. This illustrates their lack of concern for the neighborhood and the rules.
There has never been any accountability for their behavior. It is so frustrating!
Delta Chi has had five noise complaints since they became aware of the hearing, and three resulted in noise
citations. Before that, they also had a significant history of noise citations. But their behavior after knowing they
needed to take some responsibility and would appear at a hearing shows that they don't care.
Please keep this information in mind for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing.
4
Thank you,
Kathie
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1236 Monte Vista 5.17.2025 Delta Chi.mp4
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
DELTA CHI – Conditional Use Permit, R-4 zone
12
•The property at 1236 Monte Vista Pl has had a Conditional Use Permit since August 1998.
•The maximum occupancy on site is 53 people. (CUP Item #4)
•The fraternity must comply with all laws, including the noise ordinance. (CUP Item #12)
On 3/15/2025, the fraternity was cited for a noisy party at 4:21 AM with 100 people.
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties (NSPY) at 1236 Monte Vista Place are below:
Fall 2024 to
present
(2024-2025)
academic year
2023-2024
academic year
SIGMA NU – Conditional Use Permit, R-4 zone
30
•When Sigma Nu hosts a party, it often installs 6’ fences around the perimeter of its front yard
and covers the fences with plastic or tarps to obscure the view of its fraternity parties.
•The fraternity members remove the fence a day or two after the party. See photos from party on
4/19/2024 (below) and 2/28/2025 (at bottom of page)
**
Sigma Pi installed a fence
covered with plastic to hide its
party on 2/28/2025 (left).
The fraternity received a noise
citation for a noisy party with 100
people. (above)
**HBD – “Has Been Drinking” or Intoxicated
31
Fall 2024 to
present
2024-2025
academic yr
2023-2024
academic
year
Calls to SLOPD for noisy parties (NSPY) at 1304 Foothill are below:
•Most citations to Sigma Nu list 100 people at the parties.
•SLOPD officers do not count the number of attendees. Officers frequently ask the host of the
party how many people are at the event and use the number given by the host on the citation.
•Sigma Nu also has multiple “satellite” fraternity houses that host noisy fraternity parties in the
neighborhood, which is illegal. These events are registered beforehand with Cal Poly’s Greek Life
office therefore the locations of illegal fraternity houses are known to Cal Poly but not shared with
the City. Community Development made a Public Records Request for the addresses of
registered fraternity events, and Cal Poly refused to disclose the locations to the City.
1
From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Sent:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 6:32 PM
To:kathie walker; Mezzapesa, John; Patino, Mallory
Subject:RE: PC Hearing for Delta Chi & Sigma Nu on 5/28, Comments and Parties
Kathie,
Thank you for sending this to me, I will give you a call later this week.
Timmi
From: kathie walker < >
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 12:05 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Patino, Mallory
<mpatino@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: PC Hearing for Delta Chi & Sigma Nu on 5/28, Comments and Parties
Timmi,
I see that I already sent you the email to SCLC members on April 17, 2025 so I won't re-send. It is titled SCLC
Meeting on 4/17/2025, St. Fratty's Day party at Delta Chi fraternity. A video was attached to that email showing
the early morning party on 3/15/2025, which was cited by SLOPD with 100 people.
-Kathie
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 11:57 AM kathie walker < > wrote:
Hi Timmi,
Yesterday, there were some posts on YikYak about fraternities, and someone posted a photo of Notices they'd
received in the mail. One of the commenters said, "Lfg (let's f--king go), parties gonna be louder and bigger than
ever."
This is the general attitude our neighborhoods near Cal Poly have faced for the past few years. The fraternities
do not care about the city's rules or how their noisy fraternity parties affect their neighbors.
2
Last weekend, my husband Steve worked night shift (7:30 PM - 8 AM) from Thursday to Sunday. I think you know
he's an EMS helicopter pilot and needs to get adequate sleep between his shifts so he can be safe to fly his
medical crew and patients. He relies on getting sleep from mid-morning until he wakes up at around 5 PM. He'd
had a particularly traumatic flight involving a 3-year-old boy and had a hard time getting to sleep, so was
distressed when the parties woke him that day.
On Saturday, we could hear yelling and music from parties. The most disruptive thing for Steve was that the
bass in the music was reverberating in our home, keeping him awake. He asked me to find the party and call it
in. (He did not want to get out of bed and go into the sunlight, which would make it difficult to get back to
sleep.) I thought the party might be on 'frat row' on Foothill because that's usually where the daytime noise
comes from, but the noise was coming from behind Foothill on Monte Vista. I didn't feel comfortable taking a
video because there were so many people in front yards and on the street, so I drove onto Cal Poly's campus
and observed the party at Delta Chi at 1236 Monte Vista Place. I took a short video. I was about 150 away from
the source of the noise, and a large, inflatable water slide is visible in the video, with people sitting on the
balcony above it at 1236 Monte Vista.
I called in the party to SLOPD, and it was cleared as a Negative Violation. It's common for SLOPD not to enforce
the noise ordinance, especially with daytime parties, even though they violate the SLOMC 9.12, which is
especially frustrating when sleep is necessary during the day. The SLOMC states that a "noise disturbance" is
prohibited to be clearly audible at 50 feet from the noisemaker, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The city has
declared that a noise violation is considered a "public nuisance".
3
I wanted to make you aware of the party at Delta Chi, 1236 Monte Vista Pl, on Saturday, 5/16/2025, and have
attached a video.
Delta Chi also had a party on St. Fratty's Day, 3/15/2025, and was issued a citation at around 4 AM. Cal Poly
prohibited their Greek organizations from hosting parties on St. Fratty's Day, and said the fraternity or sorority
would be suspended if they held a party. Delta Chi and Sigma Nu planned to have parties that morning, but
Sigma Nu cancelled theirs a few days beforehand.
Delta Chi's citation for the party listed 100 people, which is a violation of the maximum occupancy of 53 listed
in its CUP. The City sent the citation to Cal Poly, and Delta Chi was facing suspension, but they appealed to the
Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities (OSRR). They claimed that they hadn't hosted a party and that 100
people stampeded their fraternity, knocked down fences, and caused the mayhem that led to the noise
citation.
In fact, the fraternity did plan to host a party that morning and painted a banner beforehand that hung in their
courtyard that said "Get Lucky" "St. Fratty's 2025" with Delta Chi's Greek letters in a four-leaf clover. There
were videos posted on TikTok that showed the party very early in the morning on 3/15/2025 (2 AM) and later (3
AM) when a large crowd was in the courtyard, standing around, dancing, conversing, and drinking. There was
no panic or concern on anyone's face and no "stampede" as claimed by Jason Mockford, the Cal Poly
administrator who oversees the Greek Life. Nevertheless, Cal Poly's OSRR bought the story and did not hold
Delta Chi responsible for hosting the party on 3/15/2025.
Jason Mockford defended Delta Chi during an SCLC meeting in April. I am an alternate Representative on SCLC
and was in the audience, but not able to speak because I was not sitting at the table. I wrote an email to the
committee members afterward and will forward it to you so you understand the complete picture. Essentially,
Delta Chi was not held accountable, and everyone at SCLC (the mayor, city manager, etc.) probably believed
Mr. Mockford's story about the fraternity being stampeded by outsiders. If there weren't videos showing
otherwise, no one would know the truth.
4
If Delta Chi had been suspended, they would no longer be in good standing and would have lost their
Conditional Use Permit per SLOMC 17.86.130A.3.
I sent a report last week for the fraternity parties held over a weekend last month. Sigma Nu and Delta Chi each
held parties during that weekend. I've attached the pages from my report related to Sigma Nu and Delta Chi. It
includes the noise complaints to SLOPD from last academic year (2023-2024) and this academic year (2024-
2025).
One of the biggest red flags is that these fraternities were aware that they would be appearing before the
Planning Commission for a re-review of their CUPs, yet held huge, noisy parties in violation of their CUPs.
Sigma Nu had fenced off their front yard and covered the fence with tarps to hide parties in their front yard.
Since they became aware of the PC hearing, there were noise complaints on 2/22/2025, 2/28/2025, 3/1/2025,
and 4/19/2025. Of those, three received noise citations with 80-100 people. Sigma Nu had many noise
citations before that, but what stands out is that they knew they would have to plead their case to the City at a
hearing, and still held these huge, noisy parties. This illustrates their lack of concern for the neighborhood and
the rules. There has never been any accountability for their behavior. It is so frustrating!
Delta Chi has had five noise complaints since they became aware of the hearing, and three resulted in noise
citations. Before that, they also had a significant history of noise citations. But their behavior after knowing they
needed to take some responsibility and would appear at a hearing shows that they don't care.
Please keep this information in mind for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing.
Thank you,
Kathie
1236 Monte Vista 5.17.2025 Delta Chi.mp4
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 12:05 PM
To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John; Patino, Mallory
Subject:Re: PC Hearing for Delta Chi & Sigma Nu on 5/28, Comments and Parties
Timmi,
I see that I already sent you the email to SCLC members on April 17, 2025 so I won't re-send. It is titled SCLC
Meeting on 4/17/2025, St. Fratty's Day party at Delta Chi fraternity. A video was attached to that email showing
the early morning party on 3/15/2025, which was cited by SLOPD with 100 people.
-Kathie
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 11:57 AM kathie walker < > wrote:
Hi Timmi,
Yesterday, there were some posts on YikYak about fraternities, and someone posted a photo of Notices they'd
received in the mail. One of the commenters said, "Lfg (let's f--king go), parties gonna be louder and bigger than
ever."
This is the general attitude our neighborhoods near Cal Poly have faced for the past few years. The fraternities
do not care about the city's rules or how their noisy fraternity parties affect their neighbors.
2
Last weekend, my husband Steve worked night shift (7:30 PM - 8 AM) from Thursday to Sunday. I think you know
he's an EMS helicopter pilot and needs to get adequate sleep between his shifts so he can be safe to fly his
medical crew and patients. He relies on getting sleep from mid-morning until he wakes up at around 5 PM. He'd
had a particularly traumatic flight involving a 3-year-old boy and had a hard time getting to sleep, so was
distressed when the parties woke him that day.
On Saturday, we could hear yelling and music from parties. The most disruptive thing for Steve was that the
bass in the music was reverberating in our home, keeping him awake. He asked me to find the party and call it
in. (He did not want to get out of bed and go into the sunlight, which would make it difficult to get back to
sleep.) I thought the party might be on 'frat row' on Foothill because that's usually where the daytime noise
comes from, but the noise was coming from behind Foothill on Monte Vista. I didn't feel comfortable taking a
video because there were so many people in front yards and on the street, so I drove onto Cal Poly's campus
and observed the party at Delta Chi at 1236 Monte Vista Place. I took a short video. I was about 150 away from
the source of the noise, and a large, inflatable water slide is visible in the video, with people sitting on the
balcony above it at 1236 Monte Vista.
I called in the party to SLOPD, and it was cleared as a Negative Violation. It's common for SLOPD not to enforce
the noise ordinance, especially with daytime parties, even though they violate the SLOMC 9.12, which is
especially frustrating when sleep is necessary during the day. The SLOMC states that a "noise disturbance" is
prohibited to be clearly audible at 50 feet from the noisemaker, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The city has
declared that a noise violation is considered a "public nuisance".
I wanted to make you aware of the party at Delta Chi, 1236 Monte Vista Pl, on Saturday, 5/16/2025, and have
attached a video.
Delta Chi also had a party on St. Fratty's Day, 3/15/2025, and was issued a citation at around 4 AM. Cal Poly
prohibited their Greek organizations from hosting parties on St. Fratty's Day, and said the fraternity or sorority
would be suspended if they held a party. Delta Chi and Sigma Nu planned to have parties that morning, but
Sigma Nu cancelled theirs a few days beforehand.
3
Delta Chi's citation for the party listed 100 people, which is a violation of the maximum occupancy of 53 listed
in its CUP. The City sent the citation to Cal Poly, and Delta Chi was facing suspension, but they appealed to the
Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities (OSRR). They claimed that they hadn't hosted a party and that 100
people stampeded their fraternity, knocked down fences, and caused the mayhem that led to the noise
citation.
In fact, the fraternity did plan to host a party that morning and painted a banner beforehand that hung in their
courtyard that said "Get Lucky" "St. Fratty's 2025" with Delta Chi's Greek letters in a four-leaf clover. There
were videos posted on TikTok that showed the party very early in the morning on 3/15/2025 (2 AM) and later (3
AM) when a large crowd was in the courtyard, standing around, dancing, conversing, and drinking. There was
no panic or concern on anyone's face and no "stampede" as claimed by Jason Mockford, the Cal Poly
administrator who oversees the Greek Life. Nevertheless, Cal Poly's OSRR bought the story and did not hold
Delta Chi responsible for hosting the party on 3/15/2025.
Jason Mockford defended Delta Chi during an SCLC meeting in April. I am an alternate Representative on SCLC
and was in the audience, but not able to speak because I was not sitting at the table. I wrote an email to the
committee members afterward and will forward it to you so you understand the complete picture. Essentially,
Delta Chi was not held accountable, and everyone at SCLC (the mayor, city manager, etc.) probably believed
Mr. Mockford's story about the fraternity being stampeded by outsiders. If there weren't videos showing
otherwise, no one would know the truth.
If Delta Chi had been suspended, they would no longer be in good standing and would have lost their
Conditional Use Permit per SLOMC 17.86.130A.3.
I sent a report last week for the fraternity parties held over a weekend last month. Sigma Nu and Delta Chi each
held parties during that weekend. I've attached the pages from my report related to Sigma Nu and Delta Chi. It
includes the noise complaints to SLOPD from last academic year (2023-2024) and this academic year (2024-
2025).
One of the biggest red flags is that these fraternities were aware that they would be appearing before the
Planning Commission for a re-review of their CUPs, yet held huge, noisy parties in violation of their CUPs.
Sigma Nu had fenced off their front yard and covered the fence with tarps to hide parties in their front yard.
Since they became aware of the PC hearing, there were noise complaints on 2/22/2025, 2/28/2025, 3/1/2025,
and 4/19/2025. Of those, three received noise citations with 80-100 people. Sigma Nu had many noise
citations before that, but what stands out is that they knew they would have to plead their case to the City at a
hearing, and still held these huge, noisy parties. This illustrates their lack of concern for the neighborhood and
the rules. There has never been any accountability for their behavior. It is so frustrating!
4
Delta Chi has had five noise complaints since they became aware of the hearing, and three resulted in noise
citations. Before that, they also had a significant history of noise citations. But their behavior after knowing they
needed to take some responsibility and would appear at a hearing shows that they don't care.
Please keep this information in mind for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing.
Thank you,
Kathie
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of
this picture from the Internet. 1236 Monte Vista 5.17.2025 Delta Chi.mp4
1
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Friday, May 23, 2025 2:03 PM
To:kathie walker
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: Re-review of CUP: Sigma Nu - 1304 Foothill Blvd
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: Friday, May 23, 2025 11:25 AM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Subject: Re-review of CUP: Sigma Nu - 1304 Foothill Blvd
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Early this year, I learned that the Sigma Nu fraternity at 1304 Foothill Blvd would be re-
reviewed by the Planning Commission. I did not make this complaint to
Community Development, but am glad that the City is considering the negative impacts of
problem fraternities on the neighborhood.
Our family is not the only household affected by fraternities in our neighborhood.
Unfortunately, most residents are afraid to come forward because they fear retaliation from
fraternity members. This does not specifically apply to Sigma Nu but applies overall to the
fraternity culture and the experiences of many of the long-term residents in our neighborhood.
Therefore, I think it's important to mention.
Some residents have told me about the vandalism of their property and harm to their pet that
they suspect was caused by fraternity members, after they (two different families) told the
owner of the property about the problems caused by a fraternity, and the fraternity's lease
was not renewed. Some long-term residents are so intimidated by fraternity members that
2
they will not report loud parties to SLOPD because they are afraid the fraternity members will
know it was them and will retaliate. These are elderly people, afraid to report the anti-social
behavior of their neighbors.
One of my neighbors, two blocks away (near the Sigma Nu property) sent me a video taken
by his wife of a mob of young adults in front of his house on St. Fratty's Day, 3/15/2025. A
college-aged guy walking by yelled at his wife, "Kathie Walker! MOVE!!" I was in my home,
two blocks away, and I am slightly older than his wife, but somehow the guy assumed she was
me.
I have been harassed and cyberstalked by fraternity members who lived next door after
SLOPD issued them a noise violation. After they moved out, the harassment continued. As
recently as one month ago, people showed up at our home late at night because they were
told there was a party at our address. A few weeks ago, a guy walked by our home, said my
name and called me a f--king bitch. These people have never met me or interacted with me,
but are targeting me because my husband and I have made the City aware of the "fraternity
problem" after a fraternity moved in next door to us in 2022. We are not the bad guys. The
fraternities have been operating illegally, with impunity for so long that they now resent
having to follow the rules.
Sigma Nu has a Conditional Use Permit at 1304 Foothill, but its history shows ongoing noise
complaints, citations, and a flagrant disregard for the conditions of its CUP. The reason a
fraternity is allowed to operate in an R3 or R4 residential neighborhood is that they have a
CUP, and the fraternity members are expected to follow the conditions of their CUP to blend
into the higher-density neighborhoods.
A screenshot of the noise complaints for 1304 Foothill for the past 1 1/2 years is below.
Most of the citations at 1304 Foothill are for parties of 100+ people. The SLOPD Log shows
100 people at the party on 11/1/2024, although the administrative citation issued by Officer
Cutler lists 300 people for that same party. A copy of the citation, shown below, is included
in Attachment 6 E - Notice to Correct Violations, dated 1/8/2025, page 6. I'm not sure why the
SLOPD log only lists 100 people when the citation says 300.
3
The Notice of Violation sent to the property owner on 1/8/2025 outlines the violation of the
conditions listed in the CUP and the history of noise calls to SLOPD. Some of the police reports
say blaring music was heard 200 feet from the property, and alcohol violations were observed
by the police officers. The Notice sent to the property owner says these violations constitute a
public nuisance and must be abated.
About 6 weeks after the notice was sent on 1/8/2025, the fraternity continued hosting large,
noisy parties. Between the end of February 2025 and April 2025, there were four loud parties
at 1304 Foothill with 80-100+ people! The max occupancy according to the CUP is 19
people.
The party on 2/22/2025 had 100 people listed on the citation.
This is the third citation in less than 9 months and carries a fine of $1,000. The City also
issues a fine to the property owner (I think it is also $1,000) with a "landlord citation". Most
people would be paying attention at this point because of the consequences. Sigma Nu,
4
however, did not care. Each subsequent citation within 9 months carried the same financial
penalty.
Less than one week later, on 2/28/2025, the fraternity held another large, noisy party with
blaring music and received another citation that also listed 100 people.
Less than two months later, on 4/19/2025, they held another loud party with 80 people listed
on the citation.
The fraternity installed temporary fencing around the perimeter of its front yard on 2/28/2025
and 4/19/2025 to hide the view of its parties. Photos below show the fences installed to hide
the parties on February 28th and April 19th.
5
Sigma Nu knew or should have known about the conditions listed in its CUP after the City sent
a Notice of Violation on 1/8/2025. They knew they were violating the terms of the CUP and the
noise ordinance by subsequently throwing enormous, loud parties. They knew it was wrong,
but they did it anyway, again and again. By their actions and behavior, they have shown that
they do not have any consideration for rules, the law, or the impact of their actions on their
neighbors. I can understand giving them one or two chances, but they've had seven citations
within the past 1 1/2 years. The parties were huge and extremely disruptive, and they did not
care about the consequences.
They got three citations for huge parties after the property owner was issued a
Notice of Violation! It's irrational to reward this behavior with approval of its CUP at 1304
Foothill. I do not understand why City Staff is recommending approval. The CUP should be
revoked.
Sigma Nu has another CUP for separate property at 1292 Foothill, so the fraternity has the
opportunity to prove it can be responsible by following the conditions of the CUP at that
property. They will still be able to operate from a different location. Unfortunately,
the fraternity has shown that it is not able or willing to abide by the conditions of the CUP at
1304 Foothill, and I respectfully request that the CUP be revoked.
Many other fraternities at Cal Poly do not have a legal location or a CUP. Only 6 of Cal Poly's
18 fraternities have CUPs, and Sigma Nu has two for separate properties. Perhaps a different
fraternity would be willing to abide by the terms of the CUP and be better neighbors. Or
6
perhaps the property is better suited for standard housing since that area of the neighborhood
has a high concentration of fraternities, which have adversely affected the neighborhood.
I also feel the property owners of fraternity houses should be held accountable for their CUPs.
Fraternities tend to pay a higher amount of rent because it is divided among several people.
Leasing to a fraternity is lucrative for these investors. They also have a responsibility to
ensure that their tenants are not causing mayhem in the neighborhood.
Finally, Cal Poly needs to start taking responsibility for its fraternities. The neighborhoods
cannot accommodate each of the 18 fraternities at Cal Poly. The university is continuing to
recruit new fraternities. Alpha Gamma Rho will be reinstated next year, and Cal Poly recently
announced that Phi Kappa Alpha will join Cal Poly in Fall 2026. The neighborhoods cannot bear
the burden of housing Cal Poly's fraternities, especially when those fraternities are not able to
follow the conditions of their CUPs. Please hold them accountable.
Sigma Nu has demonstrated again and again that it is not able to abide by the conditions of its
CUP at 1304 Foothill or the noise ordinance. Please do not approve the CUP.
Thank you,
Kathie Walker
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Friday, May 23, 2025 12:27 PM
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Re-review of CUP: Delta Chi - 1236 Monte Vista Place
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I've reviewed the agenda published online yesterday for the meeting on Wednesday,
5/28/2025. Since Monday is a holiday and you will not receive correspondence sent over the
weekend until Tuesday, I wanted to send you an email today. I may have some things to add.
If so, I will email the Clerk over the weekend, but I don't want to delay getting you this
information so you have a chance to review it before Wednesday.
Our home is pretty far from 1236 Monte Vista, so we don’t hear its parties. The exception was
last weekend, 5/17/2025. My husband was working night shift (7:30 PM – 8 PM) from
Thursday to Sunday and needed to sleep during the day. On Saturday, he was unabl e to sleep
because of the sound of reverberating bass from loud music in our neighborhood. I found the
party at 1236 Monte Vista and called SLOPD. It’s the only time I’ve called for a party at this
address. There were too many people in the area to take a video, but I drove onto Cal Poly’s
campus and captured the party from about 160 feet away, based on Google Earth. A link to
the video is here: https://vimeo.com/1087220635?share=copy#t=0
SLOMC prohibits any noise disturbance plainly audible 50 feet from the noisemaker, so this
party was a clear violation of the noise ordinance. It was cleared by SLOPD as a “Negative
Violation”.
Delta Chi at 1236 Monte Vista Place has a long history of noise complaints. Looking back to
the beginning of the last academic year (Fall 2023), there have been 12 calls to SLOPD for
noise at 1236 Monte Vista, not including my call on 5/17/2023. Eight resulted in a citation,
although the fraternity successfully appealed a citation on 3/03/2025. The party on 3/15/2025
was an unruly gathering with 100 people listed on the citation.
2
Party on 3/15/2025: St. Fratty’s Day
SLOPD responded to a call at 1236 Monte Vista for a “huge party” at 4:00 a.m. on 3/15/2025,
also known as “St. Fratty’s Day”. SLOPD issued an unruly gathering citation.
Prior to St. Patrick’s Day weekend, Cal Poly prohibited all Greek life organizations from hosting
parties that weekend. If a fraternity held an unsanctioned event, it faced discipline and
possible suspension.
Delta Chi is currently on probation until the end of Spring quarter 2025; therefore, hosting an
unsanctioned party would likely result in the fraternity’s suspension.
Source: https://clubs.calpoly.edu/student-organization-sanction-information
The fraternity did not appeal the citation it received on 3/15/2025 .
SLOPD also sent the citation to Cal Poly’s Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities (OSRR)
for possible discipline from the university.
Videos of the party were posted on social media and shared with the OSRR at Cal Poly. The
videos show a crowd of young men and women standing around in the courtyard, on stairways
and balconies at 1236 Monte Vista, dancing, drinking, and conversing early that morning while
it was still dark outside. Someone also posted a TikTok video of her travels from Maui to SLO
for St. Fratty's Day, and the first place she went when she got into town was the party at
Delta Chi. There is a banner hanging in the courtyard of the fraternity that says, "Get Lucky,"
3
"St. Frattys ‘25" with a four-leaf clover and the Greek letters for Delta Chi. A screenshot from
one of the videos is below.
Videos are short snippets so I have slowed some down to better see the party and crowd, and
that the party was intentional and not a stampede of 250 people. The first snippet was when
the gal from Maui arrived and the caption says, "hey Delta Chi"; the second video is two
young women and their BORGs at the fraternity; and the third shows the crowd on stairways,
balconies, and the floor of the courtyard. Delta Chi is clearly hosting a party. Video link is
here: https://vimeo.com/1087221996?share=copy#t=0
If a fraternity is suspended, it is no longer in good standing with Cal Poly. This means the CUP
is revoked, according to the SLO Municipal Code.
Cal Poly’s OSRR investigated Delta Chi’s party on 3/15/2025. Jason Mockford is the Senior
Director of Leadership and oversees fraternity operations at Cal Poly. He participated in the
OSRR’s investigation on the fraternity’s behalf. According to Mr. Mockford, the fraternity
presented evidence that showed
“about 50 people breaking down their fence, gaining access to their courtyard, while
members who were getting ready for the concert were trying to remove them. They asked for
assistance from law enforcement and had a bit of a false start. When they opened the gates,
4
200 more people came into their courtyard…” (Source: Recording of the Student Community
Liaison (SCLC) Committee meeting on 4/17/2025.)
Mr. Mockford reported that Cal Poly found that Delta Chi was “not responsible” for hosting a
party that morning.
In presenting its case, Delta Chi did not own up to the fact that they had, indeed, hosted a
party on 3/15/2025. They had a banner hanging in the courtyard for “St. Frattys ‘25”. Videos
show a crowd of people calmly standing in the courtyard, drinking, dancing, and conversing.
No one is panicked, and no one is storming the courtyard.
The 250 trespassers apparently showed up at the fraternity because the invited guests at the
party posted videos of the party in progress on social media platforms, such as Snapchat. The
trespassers entered the courtyard, in addition to the approximately 100 people who were
welcome at the party that morning, as shown in various videos posted online.
The 250 uninvited guests would not have gone to the fraternity, except that invited guests
posted videos on social media showing the party at 1236 Monte Vista. The news of the party
spread and led to 50 people breaking down a fence and 200 more accessing the property
through the gates.
Although Cal Poly did not find Delta Chi responsible for hosting the party on 3/15/2025, Delta
Chi DID host a party that morning.
It is telling that Delta Chi did not appeal SLOPD’s citation, especially considering that Delta Chi
successfully appealed a citation issued two weeks earlier, on 3/3/2025. During St. Fratty’s Day
2024, SLOPD voluntarily dismissed citations that were issued to properties overrun with
trespassers, who were not responsible for hosting an even t that led to the invasion. SLOPD did
not dismiss Delta Chi’s citation on 3/15/2025, and the fraternity did not appeal the citation
because the fraternity hosted a St. Fratty’s Day party in the early morning.
Noise Citations Since the Fraternity Was Notified of the CUP Review
The Staff Report says that a Notice of Violation was sent to the property owner on March 19,
2025, which cited ongoing violations of the CUP and outlined the terms of the fraternity’s CUP.
I have attached the existing CUP for 1236 Monte Vista to this email. Some conditions noted
were:
The maximum number of persons allowed on the site for routine meetings and
gatherings is 53.
No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities involving persons other than
residents are allowed between the hours of 10 PM and 9 AM, except as approved by the
Community Development Director.
Events, including meetings or parties, on site, shall be limited to those listed on a
meeting and activities schedule, submitted to and approved by the Community
Development Director in the fall of each year.
The Notice of Violation stated in bold font, “Immediate compliance is required.”
Approximately one month later, on 4/18/2025, SLOPD issued a citation for a noisy party at
1236 Monte Vista. The citation listed 50 people. SLOPD does not count people at an event.
Instead, they usually ask the party host how many people are at the gathering. The
5
number of people listed on the citation was self-reported by the person who received the
citation, Jack Werle. It also likely does not include every person on the property that night,
including those in their apartments.
On 5/17/2025, Delta Chi held another party with blaring music and a large inflatable
waterslide at 1236 Monte Vista. The reverberation of the bass from the music could be heard
from our house, several blocks away. It was not cited as a noise violation, although it was an
obvious violation.
Despite the Notice of Violation sent to the property owner on 3/19/2025 and subsequent noise
citation on 4/18/2025, Delta Chi hosted another party on 5/17/2025.
It does not seem that the fraternity members feel any sense of responsibility for the impact of
noise on their neighbors or that they are breaking the law by holding these noisy events. On
5/17/2025, my husband was unable to sleep between his long work shifts. He has a safety-
sensitive job that requires adequate rest. He is not legally allowed to report to work if he is not
rested because it would potentially put others' lives at risk.
The fraternity was not held accountable by Cal Poly for hosting an unsanctioned event and
continued to violate the conditions of its CUP with the City of San Luis Obispo.
Based on the ongoing noisy parties, which constitute a public nuisance according to the SLO
Municipal Code, and the failure of the fraternity to recognize its responsibility according to the
conditions of its CUP, I respectfully request that Delta Chi’s CUP for 1236 Monte Vista be
revoked.
Fraternities that are not able or willing to comply with the terms of their CUPs should not be
allowed to operate in residential neighborhoods. Cal Poly should provide housing on campus
for its fraternities. Continuing to allow neighborhoods to be abused does not help solve the
problem. It is time for Cal Poly to step forward and take responsibility for its fraternities.
Meanwhile, the City should hold permitted fraternities responsible for the terms of their CUPs,
and hold unpermitted fraternities responsible for operating illegally.
If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the CUP, please consider the following
modifications to the conditions:
1) Condition 2. Eliminate section (b) to read: The CUP shall be reviewed by the PC as
soon as practical if conduct on the permitted premises results in three (3) citations
within any 12-month period for violation of law or permit condition that (a) are not
contested or are upheld on appeal, and (b) the conduct for which the citations were
6
issued resulted in adverse impacts to, or complaints from, residents or occupants of the
surrounding neighborhood.
Three (3) violations of the permit condition or citations should be an automatic trigger for re-
review, without any further qualifiers.
2) Add a condition that allows Community Development to re-review upon a written
complaint.
When Lambda Chi Alpha’s CUP was appealed by Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN)
on 10/15/2024, RQN asked for a condition that lists a specific threshold of citations issued to
the fraternity, which would automatically trigger a re-review. The reason for this request was
that the CUP had never been reviewed, despite many noise complaints to SLOPD and citations
issued to the fraternity. The existing condition in the CUP said the CUP would be reviewed if a
written complaint was received from a person, the SLO Police Department, or the SLO Fire
Department; however, no one ever made a written complaint. Therefore, RQN asked for a pre-
determined number of citations that would automatically trigger a review without the need for
a written complaint.
It was not RQN’s intent to eliminate the condition that a re-review would occur if someone
made a written complaint. That condition is actually an important tool for accountability and
should be added to the CUP.
3) Condition 14. Add the following sentence to Condition 14: “A noise violation is
considered a public nuisance according to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.”
This clarifies and strengthens Condition 14, which says the CUP may be revoked for conduct
“so as to constitute a public nuisance”. At the Planning Commission hearing on 11/13/2025 for
the re-review of Alpha Epsilon Pi’s CUP, there were questions and discussion about the
definition of a public nuisance. The SLOMC makes clear that a noise violation is a public
nuisance, therefore, it would be helpful to include this clarification within the condition.
When the Planning Commission re-reviewed Alpha Epsilon Pi’s CUP on 11/13/2024, it adopted
similar conditions for the CUP at 280 California, although AEPi’s property has a maximum
occupancy of 25 people.
Last month, SLOPD responded to a noisy party at AEPi's fraternity at 280 California Blvd and
issued a noise citation for a noisy party with 150 people. Shortly after, AEPi was issued
another noise citation for a noisy party with 100 people at 280 California Blvd.
7
You may recall that at the re-review hearing on 11/15/2025, Staff was asked whether a noise
violation is a public nuisance. Tyler Corey responded that it is. Mr. Corey also said that a
condition of the CUP that is identical to Condition 14 in Delta Chi’s proposed CUP allows the
City to re-review AEPi’s CUP if there is a noise citation.
Staff was also asked if the fraternity could be placed on probation for a year, and Mr. Corey
said that the CUP acts as a probation, so listing a formal probation was not necessary as a
condition.
At the re-review hearing in November, AEPi was issued a stern warning that it would be back
at the Planning Commission if it received another violation. So far, AEPi is not scheduled to
have its CUP re-reviewed.
For these reasons, it is important to provide clarity, including for Condition 14.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to email me.
Thank you,
Kathie Walker
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Friday, May 23, 2025 11:25 AM
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Re-review of CUP: Sigma Nu - 1304 Foothill Blvd
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Early this year, I learned that the Sigma Nu fraternity at 1304 Foothill Blvd would be re-
reviewed by the Planning Commission. I did not make this complaint to
Community Development, but am glad that the City is considering the negative impacts of
problem fraternities on the neighborhood.
Our family is not the only household affected by fraternities in our neighborhood.
Unfortunately, most residents are afraid to come forward because they fear retaliation from
fraternity members. This does not specifically apply to Sigma Nu but applies overall to the
fraternity culture and the experiences of many of the long-term residents in our neighborhood.
Therefore, I think it's important to mention.
Some residents have told me about the vandalism of their property and harm to their pet that
they suspect was caused by fraternity members, after they (two different families) told the
owner of the property about the problems caused by a fraternity, and the fraternity's lease
was not renewed. Some long-term residents are so intimidated by fraternity members that
they will not report loud parties to SLOPD because they are afraid the fraternity members will
know it was them and will retaliate. These are elderly people, afraid to report the anti-social
behavior of their neighbors.
One of my neighbors, two blocks away (near the Sigma Nu property) sent me a video taken
by his wife of a mob of young adults in front of his house on St. Fratty's Day, 3/15/2025. A
college-aged guy walking by yelled at his wife, "Kathie Walker! MOVE!!" I was in my home,
two blocks away, and I am slightly older than his wife, but somehow the guy assumed she was
me.
I have been harassed and cyberstalked by fraternity members who lived next door after
SLOPD issued them a noise violation. After they moved out, the harassment continued. As
recently as one month ago, people showed up at our home late at night because they were
told there was a party at our address. A few weeks ago, a guy walked by our home, said my
name and called me a f--king bitch. These people have never met me or interacted with me,
but are targeting me because my husband and I have made the City aware of the "fraternity
problem" after a fraternity moved in next door to us in 2022. We are not the bad guys. The
fraternities have been operating illegally, with impunity for so long that they now resent
having to follow the rules.
Sigma Nu has a Conditional Use Permit at 1304 Foothill, but its history shows ongoing noise
complaints, citations, and a flagrant disregard for the conditions of its CUP. The reason a
fraternity is allowed to operate in an R3 or R4 residential neighborhood is that they have a
CUP, and the fraternity members are expected to follow the conditions of their CUP to blend
into the higher-density neighborhoods.
2
A screenshot of the noise complaints for 1304 Foothill for the past 1 1/2 years is below.
Most of the citations at 1304 Foothill are for parties of 100+ people. The SLOPD Log shows
100 people at the party on 11/1/2024, although the administrative citation issued by Officer
Cutler lists 300 people for that same party. A copy of the citation, shown below, is included
in Attachment 6 E - Notice to Correct Violations, dated 1/8/2025, page 6. I'm not sure why the
SLOPD log only lists 100 people when the citation says 300.
3
The Notice of Violation sent to the property owner on 1/8/2025 outlines the violation of the
conditions listed in the CUP and the history of noise calls to SLOPD. Some of the police reports
say blaring music was heard 200 feet from the property, and alcohol violations were observed
by the police officers. The Notice sent to the property owner says these violations constitute a
public nuisance and must be abated.
About 6 weeks after the notice was sent on 1/8/2025, the fraternity continued hosting large,
noisy parties. Between the end of February 2025 and April 2025, there were four loud parties
at 1304 Foothill with 80-100+ people! The max occupancy according to the CUP is 19
people.
The party on 2/22/2025 had 100 people listed on the citation.
This is the third citation in less than 9 months and carries a fine of $1,000. The City also
issues a fine to the property owner (I think it is also $1,000) with a "landlord citation". Most
people would be paying attention at this point because of the consequences. Sigma Nu,
however, did not care. Each subsequent citation within 9 months carried the same financial
penalty.
4
Less than one week later, on 2/28/2025, the fraternity held another large, noisy party with
blaring music and received another citation that also listed 100 people.
Less than two months later, on 4/19/2025, they held another loud party with 80 people listed
on the citation.
The fraternity installed temporary fencing around the perimeter of its front yard on 2/28/2025
and 4/19/2025 to hide the view of its parties. Photos below show the fences installed to hide
the parties on February 28th and April 19th.
5
Sigma Nu knew or should have known about the conditions listed in its CUP after the City sent
a Notice of Violation on 1/8/2025. They knew they were violating the terms of the CUP and the
noise ordinance by subsequently throwing enormous, loud parties. They knew it was wrong,
but they did it anyway, again and again. By their actions and behavior, they have shown that
they do not have any consideration for rules, the law, or the impact of their actions on their
neighbors. I can understand giving them one or two chances, but they've had seven citations
within the past 1 1/2 years. The parties were huge and extremely disruptive, and they did not
care about the consequences.
They got three citations for huge parties after the property owner was issued a
Notice of Violation! It's irrational to reward this behavior with approval of its CUP at 1304
Foothill. I do not understand why City Staff is recommending approval. The CUP should be
revoked.
Sigma Nu has another CUP for separate property at 1292 Foothill, so the fraternity has the
opportunity to prove it can be responsible by following the conditions of the CUP at that
property. They will still be able to operate from a different location. Unfortunately,
the fraternity has shown that it is not able or willing to abide by the conditions of the CUP at
1304 Foothill, and I respectfully request that the CUP be revoked.
Many other fraternities at Cal Poly do not have a legal location or a CUP. Only 6 of Cal Poly's
18 fraternities have CUPs, and Sigma Nu has two for separate properties. Perhaps a different
fraternity would be willing to abide by the terms of the CUP and be better neighbors. Or
6
perhaps the property is better suited for standard housing since that area of the neighborhood
has a high concentration of fraternities, which have adversely affected the neighborhood.
I also feel the property owners of fraternity houses should be held accountable for their CUPs.
Fraternities tend to pay a higher amount of rent because it is divided among several people.
Leasing to a fraternity is lucrative for these investors. They also have a responsibility to
ensure that their tenants are not causing mayhem in the neighborhood.
Finally, Cal Poly needs to start taking responsibility for its fraternities. The neighborhoods
cannot accommodate each of the 18 fraternities at Cal Poly. The university is continuing to
recruit new fraternities. Alpha Gamma Rho will be reinstated next year, and Cal Poly recently
announced that Phi Kappa Alpha will join Cal Poly in Fall 2026. The neighborhoods cannot bear
the burden of housing Cal Poly's fraternities, especially when those fraternities are not able to
follow the conditions of their CUPs. Please hold them accountable.
Sigma Nu has demonstrated again and again that it is not able to abide by the conditions of its
CUP at 1304 Foothill or the noise ordinance. Please do not approve the CUP.
Thank you,
Kathie Walker
1
From:kathie walker <kathiewalkerslo@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 24, 2025 4:07 PM
To:Dietrick, Christine; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John; McDonald, Whitney
Subject:Huge "ZBTahiti" Dayge at 1646 Fredericks (R1) on 5/24/2025
During the City Council meeting last week, I spoke about the huge "dayges" (daytime ragers) with hundreds of
people in the backyards of single-family homes that are planned by fraternities for this weekend and next
weekend. Zeta Beta Tau hosts an annual "ZBTahiti" with hundreds of people in their backyard. It happened today
at one of the fraternity's illegal houses at 1646 Fredericks Street.
I called SLOPD and spoke with the Watch Commander because I wanted to file a report for the violation of
SLOMC 17.02.030 and SLOMC 17.16.010. The City has previously issued a Notice of Violation for illegal
fraternity operations at 1646 Fredericks Street. In 1989, a resident filed a report with SLOPD for a fraternity
operating without a use permit, and it was prosecuted by the City Attorney. Unfortunately, the Watch
Commander told me I couldn't file such a report and that I should speak with Code Enforcement.
The problem is that Code Enforcement officers have said they must personally witness the event to cite it. They
have routinely dismissed cases I have filed as "unable to verify" even when there are photos of the event at the
illegal fraternity house posted on social media by the fraternity.
After my conversation with the Watch Commander, swarms of college students walked past our house on the
sidewalk and in the middle of the street. There were hundreds of people at that party. I heard some say there
were police at Zeta, so it seems the party was shut down by SLOPD.
Will you please cite this property for the illegal fraternity event today, 5/24/2025? Code Enforcement has recent
records of 1646 Fredericks operating as an illegal fraternity house. SLOPD can provide body cam video from
today that shows contact with the fraternity members and the hordes of people at the party, as they leave. The
only other way to document the event is through Cal Poly, because the event was required to be registered with
Greek Life at least 10 days ago. But since Cal Poly isn't sharing that information with you, the next best option is
using SLOPD video footage to document contact with the fraternity members and the illegal fraternity event at
1646 Fredericks Street, which has already been documented by Code Enforcement to be operating illegally as a
fraternity.
The fraternity members knew it was illegal to hold an event at 1646 Fredericks Street but did so anyway.
The ongoing illegal fraternity events and the parades of loud people that scream past our house at all hours and
use our yard as a restroom, as happened last night, are causing harm to our family and the neighborhood.
People going to fraternity parties at illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood constantly prevent us from
sleeping at night or enjoying a quiet afternoon at home. They vomit in our yard and pee in our yard all the time.
Even though illegal fraternity houses have received notices from the City about the illegal fraternity operations,
they continue to host illegal fraternity parties, as Theta Chi did last night at 496 Kentucky, near our home.
What recourse do we have to combat the ongoing public nuisances we live with every weekend that Cal Poly is
in session? Please do something to hold these illegal fraternity houses accountable and stop their operations.
We cannot continue to live like this! It is affecting our mental and physical health.
-Kathie Walker
2
1
From:kathie walker < >
Sent:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 11:03 AM
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Please put the fraternity land use problem in SLO on your Agenda
Attachments:Cal Poly Fraternity Addresses _Updated Spring 2025.docx
Dear Chair Houghton, Vice Chair Tolle, and Planning Commissioners,
There is an enormous land use problem that has ruined the quality of life in neighborhoods near Cal Poly, and it
is spreading to other neighborhoods in the northern part of the City. So far, the City has not dealt with the issue
even though they know it is happening. At a City Council meeting last week (5/20/2025), my husband and I
spoke during public comment and asked that the Council agendaize this issue so that we can talk about it
publicly and start to look towards a solution. The City Manager said that they are not planning to address it until
after June 2026, more than a year from now. Then, the City will discuss code enforcement overall, with one part
being fraternity parties and neighborhood wellness.
A clip of the City Manager's statement is here: https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxG4hF5-
3poxKbpRVk8axyumjeAUMAjnmY
During that same meeting, Councilmember Jan Marx asked for a study session to close the golf course and
build affordable housing on the land. This brand-new and unexpected idea was supported by the City Manager,
and a study session for repurposing the golf course was placed on the City Council's agenda for 10/21/2025.
There are also two study sessions on the Council's agenda related to "neighborhood livability" before the end of
the year: One to discuss Renter Protections in October 2025 and another for a Rental Housing Registry on
12/2/2025. Nothing is on the Agenda Forecast related to illegal fraternity operations, even though that issue was
specifically mentioned when "neighborhood livability" was adopted as a major city goal in FY 25-27. I have been
trying to get the problem addressed since 2022, and it has become worse each year.
We cannot continue to live without sleep or peace nearly every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. I cannot
imagine going through this hell for another academic year, August 2025 - June 2026. The situation has already
created a mass exodus of residents from our neighborhoods. When the long-term residents move out,
their properties are often leased to fraternities. The fraternity members rent a house, plant a flag, hold fraternity-
related events, and the property becomes a full-fledged fraternity house. There are multiple illegal fraternity
houses on every block of our neighborhood! The main chapter houses for most fraternities are in our
neighborhood. I have attached a list of the addresses.
The Tribune Editorial Board published an Editorial about the matter on 1/21/2025, but neither the City nor Cal
Poly has taken action to solve the problem. A link to the article is here: https://archive.is/6Ipcg
Therefore, I (and many of my neighbors) ask that you, the Planning Commission, place the matter on your
agenda to address the illegal land use of fraternity operations, the problems created by that illegal land use, and
the possible solutions to bring land use into compliance. Perhaps you can request a study session or an open
forum where the issue can be addressed by the City, Cal Poly, and the public. Otherwise, if that's too much to
ask, you could request that Community Development present the situation, including the properties identified
by Community Development as illegal fraternity operations, the Notices sent out to the property owners, the
current status of those cases, and the plan to deal with these land use violations in the long term.
2
Here are the issues that we are most concerned about:
Illegal fraternity operations in the R1 and R2 neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. There are over 50
documented illegal fraternity houses that host fraternity events, when it is illegal to do so. The number
increases every fall when Cal Poly's academic year begins.
Code Enforcement is not available to respond to code cases, even when they are reported beforehand,
because Code Enforcement staff do not work weekends. Most events happen on weekends. It also takes
several days for the City to process code cases reported through the AskSLO app.
Code Enforcement is not communicating with SLOPD, so law enforcement does not know the location of
the illegal fraternity properties in the neighborhoods. Dispatch is often sending SNAP student officers,
and they can't issue citations.
Cal Poly is not taking responsibility for its fraternity operations.
Code Enforcement is using the wrong legal standard to cite events - using 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
instead of 'preponderance of the evidence' - which has resulted in most code cases being dismissed as
"unable to verify". The legal standard for these code cases is the lower standard of a 'preponderance of
the evidence,' which means it is more likely than not. The lack of training and knowledge of Code
Enforcement has resulted in a continued lack of accountability for Greek life at Cal Poly and the
continued demise of our neighborhood.
I recently resubmitted a case to Code Enforcement for the main chapter house for Kappa Sigma at 281 Hathway
(R1), but the code enforcement officer would not open a case. I reported to Code Enforcement on Friday, May 9,
for an event on Saturday, May 10, and my request was closed on May 13 as "unable to verify" even though the
fraternity held an event on May 10. The fraternity subsequently posted photos of the event at 281 Hathway on
Instagram on May 13, and I sent those to Code Enforcement, asked the case be reopened, but he declined.
The Community Development Director acknowledged that the Code Enforcement officer does not understand
the standard of proof he is supposed to use to open a code enforcement case. This Code Enforcement officer
has been working on the fraternity issue since 2023! I don't understand how the officer was not properly trained,
and has been dismissing legitimate cases throughout that time. Code Enforcement also lost about 20 Notices
sent to property owners for illegal fraternity operations. I only discovered this when I requested public records
for the Notices, and the Clerk responded that many of the letters were lost by the Community Development
Department. They provided a spreadsheet of the addresses where Notices were sent, which allowed me to
cross-reference the Notices they provided to determine those that were missing.
Regarding my request to open the case for the illegal fraternity at 281 Hathway, screenshots of the emails from
the Code Enforcement Officer and Director Tway are below:
3
Illegal fraternity operations in our neighborhood have caused a mass exodus of long-term residents. People
have moved away because of the noise. For many years, residents thought the problem was caused by college
students having parties, until we realized in 2022 that the parties weren't standard college parties - they were
fraternity parties, which are much larger and more disruptive. They often include DJs with blaring music. In Fall
and Spring, when it's warmer, the fraternities rent large, inflatable wa ter slides for these events with hundreds of
people in backyards in the neighborhood.
In June 2022, New Times published an article, "Nuisance on the Block," about a family dealing with a noisy
neighbor next door to them on Hope Street. It was an illegal fraternity. That family later sold their home and
moved to a nearby city. An investor bought their property and rented it to a fraternity that held fraternity-related
events there! Many families have left the neighborhood in the past few years because of the increase in noise
caused by illegal fraternity operations.
There was an exponential increase in noise in the Fall of 2021, and the problem was discussed among members
of our neighborhood association via a group email. People said fraternities had moved in nearby, and they were
not able to sleep, could not open their windows, and had to run fans to try to drown out the noise. Officers
routinely cleared noise complaints called into SLOPD for parties as negative violations. I began taking videos in
Fall 2021 and sending them to leadership at SLOPD. They recognized the problem, said the videos clearly
showed a noise violation, and said they would educate the officers.
The problem did not get better. In 2022, more fraternities moved into our neighborhood. I spoke about the issue
with Code Enforcement and the City Manager, Derek Johnson. That's when I learned that it is illegal for
fraternities to hold fraternity-related events in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, and they must have a Conditional
Use Permit to operate in R-3 and R-4 neighborhoods. I started gathering documentation of the illegal fraternity
operations and gave a huge amount of documentation to the new Community Development Director and Code
Enforcement Supervisor during a meeting in November 2023.
4
St. Fratty's Day is a good analogy of what has happened in our neighborhood. The event was a few hundred
people in 2021, but grew to 2,000 people in 2022; then grew to 3,000-4,000 people in 2023; then grew to 7,000
people in 2024. The City's approach to handling the illegal takeover of our neighborhood was to contain it rather
than to prevent it from happening. City leaders claimed they didn't have the money or resources to shut down
the street party.
In 2024, a complaint was sent to the Grand Jury, and the problem was investigated. This spurred the City to take
more aggressive action, which prevented the block party in 2025. (The investigation is over. The report should be
released soon.) The point is that it should not take an investigation by the Grand Jury to get a problem solved!
And the "fraternity problem" will continue to get worse, as it has since 2021, unless and until it is brought into
the public light and solutions are discussed. It is not going to solve itself.
Please place the matter on a future agenda so that we can have a public discussion about it. Some of you have
asked questions about the issue during previous Planning Commission hearings, and Tyler Corey has
responded that it cannot be discussed because it is not on the agenda. The solution is for you to ask that it be
agendaized. We need to be able to talk about it publicly and formulate plans to solve it.
Thank you,
Kathie Walker
1
Total Number of Fraternities at Cal Poly: 19 – Cal Poly continues to recruit new fraternity chapters to its campus without any provisions
for the location of the fraternity houses. The main chapter houses for the most recently
recruited fraternity chapters are illegally located in rental houses in R-1/R-2 neighborhoods.
Fraternities with Valid Conditional Use Permits: 6*
Fraternity Address Year Established at Cal Poly
1. Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd 1969
2. Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista 1989 (On probation 10/25/2024)
3. Delta Upsilon 720 E. Foothill Blvd 1989
4. Lambda Chi Alpha 1264 E. Foothill Blvd 1978
5. Phi Kappa Psi 1335 E. Foothill Blvd 1966
6. Sigma Nu 1304 E. Foothill Blvd 1985
*Sigma Nu has two CUPs, so there is a total of 7 CUPs for fraternity operations in SLO.
Fraternity Operations Identified in the City of SLO: 85
Fraternity Properties Operating Legally with Use Permit: 7
Illegal Operations at Houses in R1 / R-2 neighborhoods: 67
Illegal Operations at Houses in other zones: 11
Fraternities with Main Chapter House in R-1/R-2 neighborhoods:
Fraternity Address Year Established at Cal Poly (Cal Poly continues to recruit new chapters1)
7. Alpha Sigma Phi 1218/1220 Bond Street 2018
8. Delta Sigma Phi 1684/1688 Mill Street re-established 2023
9. Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway Avenue 2014
10. Phi Delta Theta 260 Chaplin Lane 2022
11. Phi Gamma Delta 1229 Fredericks Street 2021
12. Phi Sigma Kappa 348/350 Hathway Avenue 1991
13. Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays Street 1990
1 After Carson Starkey died of alcohol intoxication at a satellite fraternity house, Cal Poly President, Jeff Armstrong delayed recruitment/rush of freshman men until winter
quarter. In May 2013, Dr. Armstrong entered into an agreement with the Interfraternity Council called the Deferred Recruitment Compromise which allowed fraternities to
resume recruiting freshman in the fall 2014. The agreement states that Cal Poly will actively recruit new fraternity chapters to its campus. It also requires fraternities to register
their parties with Greek Life administration beforehand, listing the specific addresses of each event, which are approved by Cal Poly administration.
2
14. Sigma Pi 1525 Slack Street re-established 2008
15. Theta Chi 1820 Hope Street re-established 2000
Other locations of non-permitted Main Chapter Houses:
16. Pi Kappa Phi operates at 66 Rafael Way (R1) 2018
It also has a main house in the County at former restaurant “This Old House” at 740 W. Foothill Blvd
17. Beta Theta Pi operates main house without a CUP at 1327 E. Foothill Blvd 1986
18. Zeta Beta Tau operates main house without a CUP at 654/658 Graves Ave 2009
19. Alpha Gamma Rho is suspended and will likely re-apply for a CUP in 2025 1975-2023
3
CAL POLY SLO FRATERNITY HOUSES2
# Fraternity Address Status of Operation Documentation3 Response from the City
1 Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd (R4) CUP U1099 (MAIN) AB 524 list + Re-review of CUP 11/13/2024 by PC
2 331 Hathway Ave (R2) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat
3 Alpha Sigma Phi 1218 & 1220 Bond Street (R1) MAIN CHAPTER AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
4 299 Albert Drive (R1) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
5 Beta Theta Pi 1327 E. Foothill Blvd (R4) MAIN CHAPTER AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
6 1220 Fredericks St (R2) AB 524 list +
7 556 Hathway (R2) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
68 Chorro (R1) AB 524 list +
8 Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista Place (R4) CUP U106-98 (MAIN) AB 524 list +
1270 Fredericks (R2) (formerly Theta Chi ’22-‘23) Rush events ‘23 - ‘24
9 Delta Sigma Phi 1684 & 1688 Mill St (R2) MAIN CHAPTER Rush Fall ‘24
10 589 Cuesta Dr (R1) Rush Fall ‘24
11 Delta Upsilon 720 E. Foothill Blvd (R4) CUP U36-09 (MAIN) AB 524 list +
12 1700 Fredericks (R1) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat
13 281 Albert (R1) AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
14 388 Chaplin (R1) AB 524 list +
15 1861 Slack (R1) AB 524 list +
16 1868 Loomis (R1) Rush Fall ‘24
2Main chapter houses for each fraternity are in bold. Houses located in residential zones R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods are highlighted. Properties in other zones are in blue.
3 “AB 524” means the address was 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 and there are photos/documentation of fraternity with their Greek letters at the address.
4
17 Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway (R1) MAIN CHAPTER AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
18 322 Hathway (R2) AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
19 108 Crandall Way (R4) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
20 526 Kentucky (R2) AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat
21 1990 McCollum (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
22 311 E. Foothill Blvd (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
23 293 Albert (R1) Social media post+
24 1861 Hope (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
25 146 Stenner (R4) Social media posts
26 1142 Montalban (T-C) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
27 618 Felton (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
28 Lambda Chi Alpha 1264 Foothill Blvd (R4) CUP 0331-2023 (MAIN) AB 524 list +
1241 Monte Vista (R4) (included in CUP) AB 524 list
1243 Monte Vista (R4) (included in CUP) AB 524 list
1245 Monte Vista (R4) (included in CUP)
1251 Monte Vista (R4) (included in CUP)
29 171 Orange (R1) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
30 12 Hathway (R1) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
31 253 Albert Drive (R1) New 2023- Rush+
32 278 Albert Drive (R1) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
33 285 Chaplin (R1) Social media post
34 178 Chaplin (R1) AB 524 list
35 220 Kentucky Street
36 Phi Delta Theta 260 Chaplin Ln (R1) MAIN CHAPTER New 2023 – Rush+
37 470 Grand Ave (R1) Social media post +
38 251 Highland Dr (R1) Rush Event +
39 568 Ellen Way (R2) Rush Event +
40 Phi Gamma Delta 1229 Fredericks St. (R2) MAIN CHAPTER New 2023, Rush+Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
1254 Bond (R1) AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat
1256 Bond (R1) AB 524 list +
5
41 Phi Kappa Psi 1335 E. Foothill (R4) CUP 47-10 (MAIN) AB 524 list+
42 237 Albert Drive (R1) AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat
43 2061 Hope St (R-1) New 2023, Rush+
44 1271 Stafford (R2) New in 2023 +
45 1273 Stafford (R2) New in 2023 +
46 1275 Stafford (R2) New in 2023 +
47 346 Grand (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
48 1740 Fredericks (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
49 1276 Bond (R1) Rush Fall ‘24
50 Phi Sigma Kappa 348 & 350 Hathway (R2) MAIN CHAPTER AB 524 list +
51 1908 Loomis (R1) AB 524 list +
52 Pi Kappa Phi 740 W. Foothill Blvd (R4) COUNTY LOCATION AB 524 list +
53 66 Rafael Way (R1) MAIN CHAPTER IN CITY 2023 Rush Event +
54 447 N. Chorro (R1) 2023 Rush Event +
55 Sigma Nu 1304 Foothill Blvd (R4) CUP U1484 (MAIN) AB 524 list
56 1292 Foothill (R4) CUP U-109 Social media post +
301 Hathway (R2) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat
57 1621 McCollum (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
58 290 Chaplin (R1) Social media post +
59 1841 Slack (R1) (Zeta Beta Tau until 2024) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
60 1632 Fredericks (R1) Rush Fall ‘24
61 1541 Slack (R1)
62 385 Chaplin (R1) previously Phi Gamma Delta AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat
63 Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays (R-1) (Pi Kappa Phi until 2023) New 2023 Rush+ Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
1725 Santa Barbara AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
64 Sigma Pi 1525 Slack (R1) MAIN CHAPTER AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat
6
65 124 Stenner (R4) AB 524 list + Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
66 1555 Slack (R1)
67 Theta Chi 1820 Hope (R1) MAIN CHAPTER AB 524 list Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
68 496 Kentucky (R2) New 2023 Rush+Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
69 1350 Stafford (R2)4 New 2023 Rush+Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
70 1238 E. Foothill (R4) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
71 1441 Slack (R1) AB 524 list Notice of Violation – illegal fraternity
72 410 Grand Ave (R1) New in 2023 +
191 Kentucky (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
2149 Santa Ynez (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
73 1661 McCollum (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
74 248 & 250 Grand (R2) (Sigma Nu until 2024) Rush events+2024 Notice of Violation – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
75 1844 McCollum
76 Zeta Beta Tau 654 Graves (R4) MAIN CHAPTER AB 524 list +
77 658 Graves (R4) AB 524 list + Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
78 1928 Garfield (R4) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
79 244 Albert Drive (R1) AB 524 list +
80 2044 Loomis (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat (Still operating 10/24)
81 286 California (R4) Social media post
82 212 Albert Dr (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
83 2044 McCollum (R1) AB 524 list Advisory Letter – illegal frat
84 1646 Fredericks St (R1) Rush Fall ‘24
85 Alpha Gamma Rho 132 California Blvd (R4) USE PERMIT (U 144-97) - CUP Revoked*
*Not in good standing with Cal Poly, Suspended until Fall 2025
1130 Olive (CC) AB 524 Advisory Letter – illegal frat
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 given to Community Development on 11/8/2023.
7
Fraternity Recruitment/Rush Events during Fall 2024 were documented at the following addresses. Not all events are listed because Cal Poly & fraternities
did not publish the addresses starting this academic year:
Friday 10/4/2024:
1684-1688 Mill Street (Delta Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
281 Albert Drive (Delta Upsilon) MAIN SATELLITE HOUSE – Permitted house at 720 E. Foothill
248-250 Grand Ave (Theta Chi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE WITH 1844 MCCOLLUM (Shared Yards)
281 Hathway Ave (Kappa Sigma) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
348-350 Hathway Ave (Phi Sigma Kappa) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
1525 Slack St (Sigma Pi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
2090 Hays (Sigma Epsilon) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
1218-1220 Bond St (Alpha Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
1229 Fredericks (Phi Gamma Delta aka FIJI) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
654 & 658 Graves (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
Saturday 10/5/2024:
654 & 658 Graves (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE
299 Albert (Alpha Sigma Phi)
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 last year
322 Hathway (Kappa Sigma)
1908 Loomis (Phi Sigma Kappa)
1276 Bond St (Phi Kappa Psi)
589 Cuesta Drive (Delta Sigma Phi)
1555 Slack St (Sigma Pi)
Sunday 10/6/2024
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)
1868 Loomis (Delta Upsilon)
1
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Tuesday, May 27, 2025 11:48 AM
To:kathie walker
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: Please put the fraternity land use problem in SLO on your Agenda
Hi Kathie,
Thank you for your additional 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: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 11:03 AM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Subject: Please put the fraternity land use problem in SLO on your Agenda
Dear Chair Houghton, Vice Chair Tolle, and Planning Commissioners,
There is an enormous land use problem that has ruined the quality of life in neighborhoods near Cal Poly, and it
is spreading to other neighborhoods in the northern part of the City. So far, the City has not dealt with the issue
even though they know it is happening. At a City Council meeting last week (5/20/2025), my husband and I
spoke during public comment and asked that the Council agendaize this issue so that we can talk about it
publicly and start to look towards a solution. The City Manager said that they are not planning to address it until
after June 2026, more than a year from now. Then, the City will discuss code enforcement overall, with one part
being fraternity parties and neighborhood wellness.
A clip of the City Manager's statement is here: https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxG4hF5-
3poxKbpRVk8axyumjeAUMAjnmY
2
During that same meeting, Councilmember Jan Marx asked for a study session to close the golf course and
build affordable housing on the land. This brand-new and unexpected idea was supported by the City Manager,
and a study session for repurposing the golf course was placed on the City Council's agenda for 10/21/2025.
There are also two study sessions on the Council's agenda related to "neighborhood livability" before the end of
the year: One to discuss Renter Protections in October 2025 and another for a Rental Housing Registry on
12/2/2025. Nothing is on the Agenda Forecast related to illegal fraternity operations, even though that issue was
specifically mentioned when "neighborhood livability" was adopted as a major city goal in FY 25-27. I have been
trying to get the problem addressed since 2022, and it has become worse each year.
We cannot continue to live without sleep or peace nearly every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. I cannot
imagine going through this hell for another academic year, August 2025 - June 2026. The situation has already
created a mass exodus of residents from our neighborhoods. When the long-term residents move out,
their properties are often leased to fraternities. The fraternity members rent a house, plant a flag, hold fraternity-
related events, and the property becomes a full-fledged fraternity house. There are multiple illegal fraternity
houses on every block of our neighborhood! The main chapter houses for most fraternities are in our
neighborhood. I have attached a list of the addresses.
The Tribune Editorial Board published an Editorial about the matter on 1/21/2025, but neither the City nor Cal
Poly has taken action to solve the problem. A link to the article is here: https://archive.is/6Ipcg
Therefore, I (and many of my neighbors) ask that you, the Planning Commission, place the matter on your
agenda to address the illegal land use of fraternity operations, the problems created by that illegal land use, and
the possible solutions to bring land use into compliance. Perhaps you can request a study session or an open
forum where the issue can be addressed by the City, Cal Poly, and the public. Otherwise, if that's too much to
ask, you could request that Community Development present the situation, including the properties identified
by Community Development as illegal fraternity operations, the Notices sent out to the property owners, the
current status of those cases, and the plan to deal with these land use violations in the long term.
Here are the issues that we are most concerned about:
Illegal fraternity operations in the R1 and R2 neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. There are over 50
documented illegal fraternity houses that host fraternity events, when it is illegal to do so. The number
increases every fall when Cal Poly's academic year begins.
Code Enforcement is not available to respond to code cases, even when they are reported beforehand,
because Code Enforcement staff do not work weekends. Most events happen on weekends. It also takes
several days for the City to process code cases reported through the AskSLO app.
Code Enforcement is not communicating with SLOPD, so law enforcement does not know the location of
the illegal fraternity properties in the neighborhoods. Dispatch is often sending SNAP student officers,
and they can't issue citations.
Cal Poly is not taking responsibility for its fraternity operations.
Code Enforcement is using the wrong legal standard to cite events - using 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
instead of 'preponderance of the evidence' - which has resulted in most code cases being dismissed as
"unable to verify". The legal standard for these code cases is the lower standard of a 'preponderance of
the evidence,' which means it is more likely than not. The lack of training and knowledge of Code
Enforcement has resulted in a continued lack of accountability for Greek life at Cal Poly and the
continued demise of our neighborhood.
I recently resubmitted a case to Code Enforcement for the main chapter house for Kappa Sigma at 281 Hathway
(R1), but the code enforcement officer would not open a case. I reported to Code Enforcement on Friday, May 9,
3
for an event on Saturday, May 10, and my request was closed on May 13 as "unable to verify" even though the
fraternity held an event on May 10. The fraternity subsequently posted photos of the event at 281 Hathway on
Instagram on May 13, and I sent those to Code Enforcement, asked the case be reopened, but he declined.
The Community Development Director acknowledged that the Code Enforcement officer does not understand
the standard of proof he is supposed to use to open a code enforcement case. This Code Enforcement officer
has been working on the fraternity issue since 2023! I don't understand how the officer was not properly trained,
and has been dismissing legitimate cases throughout that time. Code Enforcement also lost about 20 Notices
sent to property owners for illegal fraternity operations. I only discovered this when I requested public records
for the Notices, and the Clerk responded that many of the letters were lost by the Community Development
Department. They provided a spreadsheet of the addresses where Notices were sent, which allowed me to
cross-reference the Notices they provided to determine those that were missing.
Regarding my request to open the case for the illegal fraternity at 281 Hathway, screenshots of the emails from
the Code Enforcement Officer and Director Tway are below:
Illegal fraternity operations in our neighborhood have caused a mass exodus of long-term residents. People
have moved away because of the noise. For many years, residents thought the problem was caused by college
students having parties, until we realized in 2022 that the parties weren't standard college parties - they were
fraternity parties, which are much larger and more disruptive. They often include DJs with blaring music. In Fall
and Spring, when it's warmer, the fraternities rent large, inflatable wa ter slides for these events with hundreds of
people in backyards in the neighborhood.
In June 2022, New Times published an article, "Nuisance on the Block," about a family dealing with a noisy
neighbor next door to them on Hope Street. It was an illegal fraternity. That family later sold their home and
moved to a nearby city. An investor bought their property and rented it to a fraternity that held fraternity-related
events there! Many families have left the neighborhood in the past few years because of the increase in noise
caused by illegal fraternity operations.
4
There was an exponential increase in noise in the Fall of 2021, and the problem was discussed among members
of our neighborhood association via a group email. People said fraternities had moved in nearby, and they were
not able to sleep, could not open their windows, and had to run fans to try to drown out the noise. Officers
routinely cleared noise complaints called into SLOPD for parties as negative violations. I began taking videos in
Fall 2021 and sending them to leadership at SLOPD. They recognized the problem, said the videos clearly
showed a noise violation, and said they would educate the officers.
The problem did not get better. In 2022, more fraternities moved into our neighborhood. I spoke about the issue
with Code Enforcement and the City Manager, Derek Johnson. That's when I learned that it is illegal for
fraternities to hold fraternity-related events in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, and they must have a Conditional
Use Permit to operate in R-3 and R-4 neighborhoods. I started gathering documentation of the illegal fraternity
operations and gave a huge amount of documentation to the new Community Development Director and Code
Enforcement Supervisor during a meeting in November 2023.
St. Fratty's Day is a good analogy of what has happened in our neighborhood. The event was a few hundred
people in 2021, but grew to 2,000 people in 2022; then grew to 3,000-4,000 people in 2023; then grew to 7,000
people in 2024. The City's approach to handling the illegal takeover of our neighborhood was to contain it rather
than to prevent it from happening. City leaders claimed they didn't have the money or resources to shut down
the street party.
In 2024, a complaint was sent to the Grand Jury, and the problem was investigated. This spurred the City to take
more aggressive action, which prevented the block party in 2025. (The investigation is over. The report should be
released soon.) The point is that it should not take an investigation by the Grand Jury to get a problem solved!
And the "fraternity problem" will continue to get worse, as it has since 2021, unless and until it is brought into
the public light and solutions are discussed. It is not going to solve itself.
Please place the matter on a future agenda so that we can have a public discussion about it. Some of you have
asked questions about the issue during previous Planning Commission hearings, and Tyler Corey has
responded that it cannot be discussed because it is not on the agenda. The solution is for you to ask that it be
agendaized. We need to be able to talk about it publicly and formulate plans to solve it.
Thank you,
Kathie Walker
2
1
From:Armas, Sara
Sent:Wednesday, May 28, 2025 5:01 PM
To:
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:Records Request UPDATE - PRR25162 Walker - Early Removal Records
Attachments:PRR25162 Walker - Early Removal Program records.pdf
Kathie Walker,
This production was reviewed by Eric Wooten, Paralegal, and Sadie Symens, Deputy City Attorney.
Responsive documents can be found here:
https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=209438&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk
Names of “new tenants” were redacted pursuant to Govt. Code § 7922.000 because the public interest
served by not disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the
information.
The records produced are the paper applications received in the past two years. Paper copies older than
two years were destroyed according to City policy and California law. The approved applications have a
check mark and date in the upper right corner indicating when the property was removed from the list.
We expect the next batch of responsive documents to be produced on June 6, 2025.
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
pdated 05/2023
City of San Luis Obispo
Request for Public Records
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: _______________________________________________ Date: ______________________
Last First
Address: ________________________________________________________________________
Street & Unit # City State Zip
Email: _____________________________________________ Phone: _______________________
Release Forms
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 Request Architect/Engineer Authorization
o Plan Request Owner Authorization
Continued
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 lega l
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.
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.
Date and Time: Specify the incident date or date and time range of the requested records
Questions may be directed to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100.
Submit Completed Forms To:
cityclerk@slocity.org
OR
City Clerk’s Office
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Friday, June 6, 2025 12:41 PM
To:NSanchez@slocity.or; Tuggle, Todd
Cc:Scott, Rick; Amoroso, Brian; E-mail Council Website; Carolyn Smith; Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross
Subject:Fireworks and "Mortars" lit off at 1311 Fredericks Street
Attachments:IMG_8210.JPG
Fireworks 1311 Fredericks 6-6-2025, 12.36.18am.mp4
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted.
Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Fireworks 1311 Fredericks 6-6-2025, 12.40.20am.mp4
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted.
Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
I hear fireworks 1311 Fredericks 6-6-2025, 1.05.09am.mp4
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted.
Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Light them out there 6-6-2025, 1.08.51am.mp4
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Mortar from 1311 Fredericks St 6-6-2025, 12.42.30am PDT.mp4
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Mortar on Kentucky at 1311 Fredericks St 6-6-2025, 1.11.44am.mp4
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Videos, attached, show people gathered in front of 1311 Fredericks Street, visible at the very top of the video.
They lit the fireworks in front of their house in the gravel/sidewalk area, in the intersection of Fredericks and
Kentucky, and in front of their driveway on Kentucky Street. Some fireworks came close to vehicles driving in the
intersection. There is also new construction with exposed wood across the street and is a fire hazard.
I called SLOPD to report the fireworks at 1311 Fredericks Street multiple times, and when SLOPD units arrived,
the people ran into the house at 1311 Fredericks, then went back out to the street to light off more fireworks
after the officers left. HOWEVER, TODAY THERE ARE FIREWORKS STILL ON THEIR FRONT PORCH, UNDER A
LOVE SEAT.
One video shows a guy walking up to the house, and he says, "I hear fireworks." and later someone calls one of
the guys Jake and JC.
In one video they say, "Back to back, three cases"
Today, we went to speak with the guys and saw fireworks on their porch under the loveseat. I have attached a
photo. They are still there are could be observed by SLOPD right now.
Thank you for investigating this issue.
2
Kathie Walker
1
From:Scott, Rick
Sent:Friday, June 6, 2025 9:56 PM
To:kathie walker; NSanchez@slocity.or; Tuggle, Todd
Cc:Amoroso, Brian; E-mail Council Website; Carolyn Smith; Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross
Subject:RE: Fireworks and "Mortars" lit off at 1311 Fredericks Street
Hi Kathie,
When units responded the residents did not open the door for the officers last night. We went out again and made
contact with at least one person at the address earlier today about the fireworks incident.
We have additional resources deployed out this weekend focused only on the increased noise and party calls as the
school year closes out.
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 <kathiewalkerslo@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 12:41 PM
To: NSanchez@slocity.or; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org>
Cc: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website
<emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Carolyn Smith < ; Sandra Rowley < ; Brett Cross
<
Subject: Fireworks and "Mortars" lit off at 1311 Fredericks Street
Videos, attached, show people gathered in front of 1311 Fredericks Street, visible at the very top of the video.
They lit the fireworks in front of their house in the gravel/sidewalk area, in the intersection of Fredericks and
Kentucky, and in front of their driveway on Kentucky Street. Some fireworks came close to vehicles driving in the
intersection. There is also new construction with exposed wood across the street and is a fire hazard.
2
I called SLOPD to report the fireworks at 1311 Fredericks Street multiple times, and when SLOPD units arrived,
the people ran into the house at 1311 Fredericks, then went back out to the street to light off more fireworks
after the officers left. HOWEVER, TODAY THERE ARE FIREWORKS STILL ON THEIR FRONT PORCH, UNDER A
LOVE SEAT.
One video shows a guy walking up to the house, and he says, "I hear fireworks." and later someone calls one of
the guys Jake and JC.
In one video they say, "Back to back, three cases"
Today, we went to speak with the guys and saw fireworks on their porch under the loveseat. I have attached a
photo. They are still there are could be observed by SLOPD right now.
Thank you for investigating this issue.
Kathie Walker
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Friday, June 6, 2025 9:59 PM
To:Scott, Rick
Cc:NSanchez@slocity.or; Tuggle, Todd; Amoroso, Brian; E-mail Council Website; Carolyn Smith;
Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross
Subject:Re: Fireworks and "Mortars" lit off at 1311 Fredericks Street
Thank you, Chief. Appreciate the update.
-Kathie
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 9:56 PM Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Kathie,
When units responded the residents did not open the door for the officers last night. We went out again and made
contact with at least one person at the address earlier today about the fireworks incident.
We have additional resources deployed out this weekend focused only on the increased noise and party calls as the
school year closes out.
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: kathie walker <
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 12:41 PM
To: NSanchez@slocity.or; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org>
Cc: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website
<emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Carolyn Smith < ; Sandra Rowley < ; Brett Cross
<
Subject: Fireworks and "Mortars" lit off at 1311 Fredericks Street
Videos, attached, show people gathered in front of 1311 Fredericks Street, visible at the very top of the video.
They lit the fireworks in front of their house in the gravel/sidewalk area, in the intersection of Fredericks and
Kentucky, and in front of their driveway on Kentucky Street. Some fireworks came close to vehicles driving in
the intersection. There is also new construction with exposed wood across the street and is a fire hazard.
I called SLOPD to report the fireworks at 1311 Fredericks Street multiple times, and when SLOPD units arrived,
the people ran into the house at 1311 Fredericks, then went back out to the street to light off more fireworks
after the officers left. HOWEVER, TODAY THERE ARE FIREWORKS STILL ON THEIR FRONT PORCH, UNDER A
LOVE SEAT.
One video shows a guy walking up to the house, and he says, "I hear fireworks." and later someone calls one of
the guys Jake and JC.
In one video they say, "Back to back, three cases"
Today, we went to speak with the guys and saw fireworks on their porch under the loveseat. I have attached a
photo. They are still there are could be observed by SLOPD right now.
Thank you for investigating this issue.
Kathie Walker
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Friday, June 6, 2025 9:59 PM
To:Scott, Rick
Cc:NSanchez@slocity.or; Tuggle, Todd; Amoroso, Brian; E-mail Council Website; Carolyn Smith;
Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross
Subject:Re: Fireworks and "Mortars" lit off at 1311 Fredericks Street
Thank you, Chief. Appreciate the update.
-Kathie
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 9:56 PM Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Kathie,
When units responded the residents did not open the door for the officers last night. We went out again and made
contact with at least one person at the address earlier today about the fireworks incident.
We have additional resources deployed out this weekend focused only on the increased noise and party calls as the
school year closes out.
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: kathie walker <
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 12:41 PM
To: NSanchez@slocity.or; Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org>
Cc: Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website
<emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Carolyn Smith < ; Sandra Rowley < ; Brett Cross
<
Subject: Fireworks and "Mortars" lit off at 1311 Fredericks Street
Videos, attached, show people gathered in front of 1311 Fredericks Street, visible at the very top of the video.
They lit the fireworks in front of their house in the gravel/sidewalk area, in the intersection of Fredericks and
Kentucky, and in front of their driveway on Kentucky Street. Some fireworks came close to vehicles driving in
the intersection. There is also new construction with exposed wood across the street and is a fire hazard.
I called SLOPD to report the fireworks at 1311 Fredericks Street multiple times, and when SLOPD units arrived,
the people ran into the house at 1311 Fredericks, then went back out to the street to light off more fireworks
after the officers left. HOWEVER, TODAY THERE ARE FIREWORKS STILL ON THEIR FRONT PORCH, UNDER A
LOVE SEAT.
One video shows a guy walking up to the house, and he says, "I hear fireworks." and later someone calls one of
the guys Jake and JC.
In one video they say, "Back to back, three cases"
Today, we went to speak with the guys and saw fireworks on their porch under the loveseat. I have attached a
photo. They are still there are could be observed by SLOPD right now.
Thank you for investigating this issue.
Kathie Walker
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Friday, June 13, 2025 6:42 PM
To:Mezzapesa, John; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Stewjenkins Info
Cc:Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Salem, Rami
Subject:1292 Foothill, Current list of CUP addresses, CUPs for AEPi & LCA
Attachments:CUP 1292 Foothill 1998.pdf; 04_15_2008, PH4 - REVIEW OF USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A
FRATERNITY, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND RE.pdf
Hi Timmi and John,
Updated List of CUPs
John, you sent me a list of the current CUPs on file at the City about a year ago, on July 19, 2024. Would you
please provide an updated list?
CUPs for Alpha Epsilon Pi and Lambda Chi Alpha
Would you please provide the current CUPs for Alpha Epsilon Pi or Lambda Chi Alpha? I can't find a copy of the
CUPs that were ultimately approved.
CUP U-109-05
I wrote to you both on 2/17/2025 ("Questions about fraternity operations") for clarification on the CUP (U-109-
05) for 135, 137, 139 Crandall and 1290, 1292 Foothill because the record says the approval of the CUP was
based on proposed improvements as a condition of use. The proposed improvements, including demolition and
redevelopment of the property, never happened.
Originally, a CUP for 1292 Foothill (U-194-97) for Lambda Chi Alpha was approved by the City Council on
3/17/1998. Before the approval of the CUP, the Simer "SLO Coast" Hostel was operating at 1292 Foothill, and
Lambda Chi Alpha was located at 1617 Santa Rosa. The fraternity and the hostel swapped locations, allowing
the hostel to occupy the 1617 Santa Rosa property while Lambda Chi Alpha occupied 1292 Foothill.
The CUP allowed 10 people to live at 1292 Foothill, and a maximum of 20 people for meetings and gatherings.
I've attached a copy of the CUP to this email.
It seems the property representative, Kevin Hauber, started exploring the idea of demolishing the houses at
1292 Foothill and 123 Crandall Way in 2005 to redevelop the property. The City's file number for the project is
109-05, and "05" indicates the first application was made in 2005, but took some time before the final plans
were brought to the ARC and PC. It was a large project that included rezoning several properties from R-3 to R-4,
demolishing the existing homes at 1292 Foothill and 123 Crandall, and replacing them with an 8,800 square
foot, 29-bed fraternity house on the property. The three-story building included 16 bedrooms, an apartment for
house parents, kitchen and dining facilities, an office, and a library. A rendering of the proposed new building
from the Agenda Report is below.
2
According to the Planning Commission Agenda Report on 2/13/2008, when the demolition of the homes was
proposed, the existing CUP only allowed 10 persons to reside at the house. This indicates the CUP #U-194-97,
approved in 1998, was in effect when the hearing took place in 2008.
Aside from the rezoning from R-3 to R-4 at 1290 Foothill, 135 Crandall, and 137 & 175 Crandall (which was a 1.4-
acre site with a 20-unit apartment complex), none of the buildings at those addresses were affected by the CUP.
On 2/13/2008, the Planning Commission approved CUP #109-05 for 1290 and 1292 Foothill Blvd, 123, 125, 137,
and 175 Crandall Way, which included rezoning from R-3 to R-4 and redeveloping the property. The existing
homes were never demolished, and the project was not completed.
Condition 1 of the CUP says, "The use permit shall not be effective until after the associated site development
has been completed consistent with the related Architectural Review Commission application ARC 109-05, and
given final occupancy." The entire CUP is copied at the bottom of this email.
It seems that Condition 1 was never met. That's why I wrote to you on 2/17/2025 and said that it appears the
terms of the CUP were never fulfilled, and asked if it was a valid CUP. Here is a portion of my email:
"There is a CUP for 1290 & 1292 Foothill, 123, 135, 137 & 175 Crandall Way (#109-05). It was a supplement to
the CUP for 1292 Foothill (#174-97) and was included in the report I gave you on 11/8/2023, which I have
attached to this email on pages 28-32 of 95 pages. There have been noise calls for the addresses on Crandall
Way but they do not show up in SLOPD's database as a fraternity. It appears the terms of the CUP were never
fulfilled, therefore perhaps that CUP is not valid but I'm not sure. Would you please let me know the
status of those addresses? Sigma Nu occupies 1292 Foothill and a sorority occupies 1290 Foothill, and I
3
believe Sigma Nu also occupies the properties on Crandall Way. I'm just trying to get my records straight so
would greatly appreciate some clarification about this.
John, you responded on 2/25/2025 and said: The CUP (109-05) is valid and encompasses all addresses listed
on the permit (1290 & 1292 Foothill, 123, 135, 137, 175 Crandall).
I've gone back and reviewed all the hearings for 1292 Foothill and cannot find any other hearings. The CUP you
provided for the property at 1292 Foothill is based on the development of the property, which never happened.
Here is a screenshot from the 2008 hearing, referencing the drawn-out development plans from 2005 (109-05).
I'm trying to keep accurate records and understand the Greek life issue. Will you please clarify the situation for
the CUP at 1292 Foothill? Is the CUP valid even though the property was never developed? The CUP for the
existing house, which was never demolished, was 10. The CUP currently used by the City allows 29 people,
almost three times the original CUP, and matches the proposed 3-story house that had 29 beds for the
fraternity. The current house is the same house that limited occupancy to 10, but the present CUP says 29,
even though the house was never demolished and redeveloped. It doesn't make sense.
What are the occupancy limitations at each property listed in the CUP?
Alpha Phi, a sorority, occupies 1290 Foothill, Sigma Nu occupies 1292 Foothill, and I'm not sure who occupies
the addresses on Crandall. Does the City notify the sorority and fraternity of the terms of their CUPs? How does
the City differentiate between the two separate organizations on such a large property, to include many
addresses on Crandall Way and Foothill?
The reason the property at 1292 Foothill has come to my attention is that last weekend, there were multiple
social media posts about a "conjoined dayge" held by Delta Chi and Sigma Nu on Saturday, June 7, 2025. The
large dayge was at 1292 Foothill, and SLOPD listed 200 people at the party. (I did not call SLOPD.) Some of my
neighbors have also said that 1292 Foothill is an ongoing problem with noisy fraternity parties. I've requested
the SLOPD history for the property. Meanwhile, I want to sort out the CUP issue and confirm whether the CUP
4
you have given me is actually valid, because the development was never completed. I have attached the record
of the meeting to his email.
Thank you for your help. I hope you have a nice weekend.
Kathie
5
Draft Resolution A
RESOLUTION NO. 1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY APPROVING THE USE PERMIT
TO ESTABLISH A FRATERNITY,AND TO ALLOW A REDUCED
STREET YARD SETBACK FROM 15' TO 10' TO ACCOMMODATE
ON-SITE PARKING,FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1292 FOOTHILL BLVD. (U 174-97)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 11,
1998, and denied the request to establish a fraternity, and allow a reduced street yard setback
from 15 feet to 10 feet to accommodate on-site parking, for property located at 1292 Foothill
Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on
February 12, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the records of the Planning
Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt under
Section 15301, Class 1 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, because it is the use of an
existing facility with no significant expansion of that use.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
U 174-97), the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
J
Resolution No. 1998 Series)
Page 2
1. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of
persons living or working in the area, because limits on hours for events and numbers of
persons allowed on site will restrict activities and limit disturbances to neighbors.
2. The subject use is appropriate at the proposed location, and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses provided that the fraternity complies with all conditions at all times.
3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan because it is a group housing use, which the
general plan says is appropriate for Medium-High Density Residential areas.
4. The proposed use meets zoning ordinance requirements because it is a fraternity in a
Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) zone, where fraternities are allowed with approval
of a Planning Commission use permit.
5. The requested street yard exception will not adversely impact the streetscape appearance of
the site or the prevalent pattern of yards in the neighborhood with appropriate screening of
the parking space.
6. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review requirements because it is a
residential use similar to the previous hostel use (Class 1, Existing Facilities, Section 15301
of the CEQA Guidelines).
SECTION 2. Anneal approval. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is
upheld, and therefore the use permit is approved, subject to the following conditions and code
requirements:
Conditions
1. No more than thirteen (13) persons shall reside at the house at any time. Additions to
structures or additional occupancy shall require a use permit amendment. The applicant shall
allow the city to verify occupancy of the house by allowing an inspection of the records or by
a visual inspection of the premises. Any inspection shall be at a reasonable time and shall be
preceded by a 24-hour notice to the residents.
2. A minimum of twelve (12) on-site parking spaces to city standards shall be provided and
maintained at all times for the intended use.
3. The request for a street yard setback exception from 15 feet to 10 feet is hereby approved,
based on the finding cited above and subject to the architectural review requirements for
screening included in Condition No. 10.
3-
Resolution No. 1998 Series)
Page 3
4. Applicant shall install an enclosed trash and recycling area to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
5. The property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. All plant materials shall be
maintained and replaced as necessary.
6. The maximum number of persons allowed on the site for routine meetings an gatherings is
20, except as specifically approved by the Community Development Director for special
events. For such special events, the applicant shall also submit a parking and transportation
plan.
7. No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities involving persons other than
residents are allowed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 9 a.m., except as approved by the
Community Development Director.
8. The applicant shall institute and maintain a neighborhood relations program. This plan shall
include at least the following elements:
Annual training of all members in community relations.
A program to inform neighbors of upcoming events at the house.
Submission of names and telephone numbers of responsible persons, including the
alumni president-and chief financial officer,to the Community Development Director and
to the neighbors within two blocks of the house. Responsible persons shall be available
during all events and at reasonable hours otherwise,to receive and handle complaints.
Evidence of implementation of said plan shall be submitted to the Director for review each
year. Failure to exercise reasonable efforts to implement said plan may be grounds for
revocation of this permit.
9. Events, including meetings or parties, on site, shall be limited to those listed on a meeting
and activities schedule, submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director
in the fall of each year. Exceptions to this schedule must be approved by the Community
Development Director. If the Director determines the change is significant and may have an
adverse impact on the neighborhood,then it will be referred to the Planning Commission for
consideration.
10. There shall be no freestanding signs on the premises. Signs shall be limited to signs located
on building faces or fences.
11. The applicant shall submit an application for architectural review of site changes including a
landscaping plan showing planting in the street yard area, as well as other areas of the site.
S-7
Resolution No. 1998 Series)
Page 4
The landscaping plan shall specifically address the need to adequately screen proposed
parking spaces visible from the street. Plans, prepared to a standard architect's or engineer's
scale, and with accurate dimensions for parking spaces and driveway widths, shall be
submitted to confirm full compliance with City standards, including the need for a
turnaround area.
12. Use permit shall be reviewed if any reasonable written citizen, or Police or Fire Department,
complaints are received by the Community Development Department. In review of the use
permit, the Planning Commission may add, delete or modify conditions of approval, or
revoke the use permit. The Planning Commission may consider adding a condition requiring
fraternity officers to perform a community service project in the neighborhood.
13. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or the following code requirements, or
the conduct of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to
constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety,or welfare
of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for revocation
of this permit.
Code Requirements
1. An approved fire sprinkler system, smoke detectors and fire extinguishers shall be installed
and maintained to the approval of the Fire Department.
2. The two parking spaces shown as garage spaces shall be available at all times for parking.
Any physical obstructions existing in the space shall be corrected to allow for their continued
use as complying parking spaces.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
S'
council N«tiag Da.
11,1151- 6s",
l
6
j acEnoA RepoRt y
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FRATERNITY,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
REZONE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE
AND THREE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES FROM MEDIUM-HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R4),
1292 FOOTHILL; ER/GP/R/U 109-05).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land
use designation for the site from Medium-High Density Residential to High-Density
Residential and approving a use permit to allow a fraternity, and adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
2. Introduce an ordinance changing the zoning from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to
High-Density Residential (R-4) for the project site and three surrounding properties.
Situation
The applicant is proposing a new fraternity building that includes many environmental friendly
and sustainable features and is designed to qualify for LEED certification (Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design). The new
proposed fraternity building would be
on the same site as the existingr__
fraternity and would increase the
number of potential residents from 10
ll
to 29. The project requires a rezone to
High-Density Residential (R-4) to
allow the number of proposed a
residents on the site. On February 13,
2008, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the project
including entitlements for a use
permit to allow the fraternity use,
general plan amendment, rezoning
and environmental review, finding it consistent with General Plan policy to locate student
housing projects such as fraternities and sororities in close proximity to the Cal Poly campus.
Council Agenda Report
0
U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lambda Chi Alpha)
Page 2
The Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5) provides a detailed analysis of the
project's consistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines and the Zoning
Regulations.
Data Summary
Address: 1290-1292 Foothill Blvd. and 123, 135, 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue
Applicant: Kevin Hauber, Phi Sigma Zeta Housing Corp.
Representative: John Knight, RRM Design Group
Zoning: R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential Zone)
General Plan: Medium-High Density Residential
Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was
recommended by the Planning Commission on February 13, 2008 (Attachment 6).
Site Description
The properties that are site of the proposed fraternity redevelopment project are 1292 Foothill
Boulevard and 123 Crandall Avenue. The 1292 Foothill portion of the property is currently
developed with two structures (six bedrooms total). On March 17, 1998, the City Council
approved a use permit allowing the fraternity use at the site with a maximum occupancy of 13.
Because of constraints in providing required parking, the occupancy has been limited to 10. Site
improvements include a small driveway and on-site parking for nine vehicles. The property at
123 Crandall Avenue is about 6,000 square feet in area and is developed with a single-family
residence with no special approvals for group housing uses.
If approved, the rezone would have left just two properties on the block zoned R-3. In staff's
preliminary analysis, the same general plan policies applicable to the applicant's proposal also
applied to the other properties so staff initiated a modification to the application to include the
remaining properties zoned R-3. There are three other properties included as part of the General
Plan Amendment and Rezoning request with no changes to site development currently proposed.
The property at 1290 Foothill is 26,520 square feet in size and is currently developed with a
sorority. 135 Crandall Avenue is developed with a 3-bedroom residence. The property at 137 &
175 Crandall Avenue developed with a twenty unit apartment complex (see Figure 1, below and
vicinity map, Attachment 1).
With the inclusion of these three properties as part of the rezoning request, there would be
continuous R-4 zoning between Foothill Blvd and the Cal Poly campus extending from
California Blvd. to Crandall Avenue. All property owners of the affected properties are in
support of the rezoning. For the other properties included in the rezone but not currently
proposed for redevelopment, future plans will be evaluated for consistency with City property
development policies, standards, and neighborhood compatibility.
y-2
Council Agenda Report
U/TR/ER 109- 05 (Lambda Chi Alpha)
Page 3
Cal Poli ti wAw
Area ojReane
i `•s 1 r
Proka Srte
10
It
Figure 1. Proiect.cite and area of rezone.
Proiect Description
At 1292 Foothill Blvd and 123 Crandall Avenue, the applicant is proposing to demolish existing
buildings and improvements on the project site to construct a new approximately 8,800 square-
foot, 29-bed fraternity house on the 0.54 acre site. The three story building includes 16-
bedrooms and has an apartment for fraternity house parents, kitchen and dining facilities, an
office, and library. Site improvements include a 23 space parking lot accessed from Foothill
Boulevard and a patio area with pergola (see Attachment 2, project plans).
There are three other properties included as part of the general plan amendment and rezoning
request with no changes to site development currently proposed. The property at 1290 Foothill is
26,520 square feet in size and is currently developed with a sorority. 135 Crandall Avenue is
6,300 square feet and developed with a 3-bedroom residence. The property at 137 & 175
Crandall Avenue is a 1.4 acre site with a twenty unit apartment complex. The proposed rezone to
R-4 would affect the density/development potential of these properties in the following way:
1) 1290 Foothill (existing sorority): the existing maximum number of persons/acre allowed on
the site is 24. With R-4 zoning there would be a possible 33 persons allowed on the site under
group housing standards. 2) 135 Crandall Ave. (existing 3-bedroom SFR) has a development
potential of 2.60 density units (ex. three (1)-bedroom units + studio) With R-4 zoning there
would be 3.47 density units (four (1)-bedroom units + studio). 3) 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue
twenty unit apartment complex) could currently be developed with 25 two-bedroom units and
with R-4 zoning 33 two-bedroom units would be possible.
ARC Review
The project was reviewed on a conceptual basis by the ARC on December 17, 2007. The ARC
was supportive of the project based mainly on its efforts for LEED certification to be at the
Z/1
Council Agenda Report
U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lambda Chi Alpha)
Page 4
forefront in terms of energy conservation and sustainability. The ARC also appreciated the
applicant's efforts to design the building to be lower in profile to address neighborhood
compatibility concerns and requested additional information at final architectural review to
include more details on site improvements such as the fence and wall details, gate design, and
trash enclosure.
Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission reviewed the project on February 13, 2008, to make a
recommendation to the City Council on the project. The Planning Commission found the
fraternity use and rezoning to High-Density Residential (R-4) appropriate with the location's
close proximity to Cal Poly. The Public Works Department had recommended a condition of
approval that the applicant contribute a "fair share" of the traffic improvements at the Foothill
and California Blvd. intersection. The "fair share" fees would have been in addition to standard
traffic impact fees for additional vehicle trips generated from the project. Planning
Commission's motion to approve the use permit was to not include the Public Works
recommended condition for intersection improvements since the project would allow additional
residents that could walk or bicycle to Cal Poly. The Public Works Department has subsequently
eliminated the recommended condition of approval based on calculations that the increase in
trips is minimal and standard traffic impact fees are sufficient for the applicant to participate in
planned improvements.
The Planning Commission adopted the resolution recommending approval of the rezone, general
plan amendment, and Negative Declaration to the City Council. The Planning Commission also
adopted a resolution recommending approval of the use permit with elimination of the
intersection improvement condition and requiring that the bathroom near the dining room and
one of the units be designed as handicap accessible (Attachment 3, PC minutes).
Summary
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the project site and surrounding
properties was supported by the Planning Commission at this location because it would allow for
increased opportunities for affordable housing and group housing uses in very close proximity to
Cal Poly, consistent with General Plan policy. The Lambda Chi fraternity sets a desirable design
precedent in the area since the project's design is the first of its kind in the City based entirely on
meeting the high "Gold Standard" of LEED certification. For the other properties included in the
rezone but not currently proposed for redevelopment, future plans will be evaluated for
consistency with City property development policies, standards, and neighborhood compatibility.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works and Fire Department have reviewed the project and found the proposed project
and driveway access to be acceptable. The grading and drainage plan has been conceptually
approved by the Public Works Department. The Utilities Department also finds the proposed
project acceptable and approves of the location and design of the trash and recycling enclosure.
Council Agenda Report
U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lambda Chi Alpha)
Page 5
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact..
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the General Plan amendment, rezoning, and use permit, based on findings of
inconsistency with the General Plan or other policies.
2. Continue the project if additional information is needed, with specific direction given to staff.
Attachments:
1: Vicinity map
2: Reduced scale project plans
3: February 13, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes
4: February 13, 2008, Planning Commission follow-up letter with draft resolutions
5: February 13, 2008, Planning Commission staff report
6: Draft initial study of environmental review (w/o attachments)
7: Ordinance approving the GP/R
8: Resolution approving use permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Council reading file: Full size project plans
GACD-PLAMbleveille\Lambda Chi Frat(1292 Foothill),ARC,GP,RZ,U,ER 109-05\City Council Report(109-05)Lambda Chi.doc
y- s
moi
CD Attachment 2
itt1*0
G
L Lfl ,
t
Y
5
c
n
xo ve
3
Q gu
mEm c a d O
QS a D w
Cnv
4
aaa« < g « « m D
CL m 3 S° ^ vBz K
f1l ss s 3 ap"g g
lo
w
Dr PPf Y ' Y y Y * 9s
Me
Y =
l
s
a N
J
1
Attachment 2
H Iry
ti
a o
TM
F
r
P
o'fif
n7
z
a
r.r
0\
Avo
is
CD
I CD
f
0fH O1
a 3 ?3333
n s
ry
5 5 aana ananana
o o
L
Za f
film Attachment 2
if
O
mn
O
22
Cc
Za
all
r)-
n
It
NJ
1.
1'1II'I'1'1111'1111111._
i;i isle z ill I;
IE
4v 11 I IIIIIIl a- 5 cniCgngEm
I i1 i IY1 II (. 1111 I
eS55 g[
G
l'.II"i,IE I,I( `* I-I'I I
11i
p
1i 1 11_ Ii t 1411111 I 11 11(I 31:A
1 1111 O 1i 1111 .
11i!•I
IiOffZ5 i
3G'-
tiaE..- I;7
liiililf.l
1
IIIIIIIGII III;III
G
Ir
111 III;II
I
lilll 11!1111 i i!4
1L11mtlll!1 11W1LLIii)i. n/. I IYnIY
I'I ilili'ilir I_
II Jilr
5=
t
1111111
nil 00
I I Epi
a _ •
Ildilll
ISI II - 1 'Iii 10 I 111 1)(•; 0A
s5! ii!i3 10
IIIIIIIII
I I t 1111 4 0
III II I i G 5 111 I 1
II fitl i r m111431
IlfI I.I III'I II tl,l I 1 '
55`
C ..
IIU1)
I - II12 L4lI I R uL
114
i'i'if 'i'i'i't'
IIII I III I I I II 111 Illlli 111?!1 I 111111 II I Y _I I
f l 1111 1111111 pll 1
I
li
1111 I:In 1lilhllll llllllll9l.,
1,1' 1'''lli lll l llllll 1 — 11z1, 1 , Illlllllllp S
1111111!
Attachment 2CD
ri
if
1
ii
aa
a
I
P
I
I
I ;
a
iI a
I q
I
I
IIIIIIII
Nor
O I I
v
mQ
n
a
3 Attachment 2
s
N65°06'2 *E 86.20'
I
X
i
I
iI I S'
m
I
Im
4 I
g
I
L N65"06'21"E 84.3=-
m I a
N
I C n
y ,2
N r ,
4d
p
MM
oto Bti p. '
I 0...
M
x I ti m 6,;ZL O5
Un
90
yoo-
0
Pu 0
O ,
y`
0zy2
V
Z
t
O
CLO
z3
r
i a
m
5 m O0gm !y mm
w DO a sg
ZG
D 'm
g
a
Attachment 2
r o
elm
x
11,10
X
M1
j
ry
g
o
a l..
0
I oz
V O
hn
Qm
A) D II 1+1 j m
r)eF
IggTI"T
r ea
yrs s 5 t
Zo
N y-/3
IaF
t .1
CLCD T wit
OQ
1
Hu O D
m + Z
r
r C Za a; m
zt
i'
r
tom,•
0
awe. a,.f
J
A
m
d"r:y
A
y
ate^"
CJ,•
l .,;
m
o "'"
a
a S
xs
s
O
V
M O Al
N
r
ti',' m
m of
fl
i
WlAR A
N Al f r m O (DO rpr Zr
rm5I11IIIIII
m
m
0 3 a 4 z P n EE z f o
yg
ge
R.49 a tqo 0
n 4 A m 6
g e } j 65 O 1E E
p
p i m 3 g#
2
D g
i 4i S
9
F
ionlnSO m m
n
3 p p p
m m
0 1 i ap p
z
i++ Zo S
yS
2(
y9n
FB gl N
F5'
4 ig :i ? s
FFF FFR aFFFF FFq F-s„FM°F6F FFi S.F F-F
dd# ttd tad'^ad6°. t:oet="ttt aa ILA a s N
t tR } ttd tt ttt dtt ttt ma
I— J
t.
r I
Ih ! 111 filly1
Im1vtVG9maG®ema. z a
8
rl Go-i Ei Rzn -
it
Ulf
it1•;ri ew Nw6
of;
W I q
i IJ nm ahIf(IN1.
7
CUM
Wii,i 111111 "
may.°,
En
ww
II I
ty,
e
y },
193' Ri f .. h
qq
Y
Attachment 2
RIM
Jill 8
fHIM si P I. 11111H '1m
z e
7z it'll@ ¢
Qm gill I?
r)
C, >
11
p
o
SAN LUIS OBISPO Affachment 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 13, 2008
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Amanda Brodie, John Ashbaugh, Michael Multari,
Dan Carpenter, Vice-Chair Charles Stevenson, and Chairperson
Carlyn Christianson
Absent: Diana Gould-Wells
Staff: Associate Planner Tyler Corey, Associate Planner Brian Leveille,
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, City Utilities Conservation
Coordinator Ron Munds, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik,
Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, and
Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: The minutes of January 23, 2008 were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 7HiII Street. 187-07: Request to add executive suite us to the allowable
use
stabusheU
d for the site and extend hours of oper on for the use from
7 a.m. to 7 . to 24 hours a day for up to 4 employees r office/phone work; R-1
zone; Robin Ro ' applicant. (Tyler Corey)
This item was continued to ate uncertain to all the project to be properly noticed
with a 1,000 foot radius from th ite, and allo he applicant and staff additional time
to clarify existing and proposed uses.
On motion by Commr Multari to conti to a to uncertain. Seconded by Commr.
Ashbaugh.
AYES: ;
iXanso
hbaugh, Carpente Brodie, Stevenson, and
NOES:
RECUSEABSENTr. Gould-
WellsThemo 'on a 6:0 vote.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on G -17thisagendawillbemadeavailableforpublicinspectionintheCommunityDevelopment, 919 Palm 7
Street, during normal business hours.
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 32/13/08
Page 2
2. 730 & 748 Foothill Blvd. TR/ER 108-07: Tentative tract map and environmen
iew for six airspace condo units with requests to allow the trash enclosure w' in
stre yard setback, fence height exception, and building setback reductions long
Foothi Ivd; R-4 zone; Foothill Courtyard LLC, applicant.
Brian Le ille)
Associate Planne rian Leveille presented the staff report, recomme ing that the
Planning Commissio adopt a resolution recommending approval of t condominium
tract map and Negative eclaration to the City Council.
Commr. Stevenson questi ed the setback exception and if a design would be
affected. He also was conce ed that the tree wells provided a quate back-up space.
He wondered if the applicants h d considered additional area f pervious pavers.
Commr. Ashbaugh recognized the ie constraints and ap eciated the R-4 density. He
asked if an addition street tree (palm) ould be provided.
Commr. Multari asked about the entry o the rear nits and the justification for the
setback exception.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Richard Rengel, applicant, supported s ffs commendation. He discussed the
Commission's concerns regarding the b -up sp a and setback exception.
Commr. Multari asked the applicant t confirm the en and open space of the units.
Commr. Stevenson asked about a trash bins and whe they would be stored.
Ron Munds, City Utilities nservation Coordinator, a lained the reason for the
enclosure instead of individ al bins.
There were no further c mments made from the public.
COMMISSIONER MMENTS:
Commr. Stever/ion said he does not support the setback exceptio and desires more
permeable suplace in the driveway. He was also concerned about t e maneuvering of
vehicles on e, particularly spaces #11 and #12.
Commr. shbaugh agreed with the exception concerns.
Com r. Carpenter supported the density and scale of the project but does of support
th street yard exception or the fence height exception. He did say he could pport an
ception to the open space standards.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. l l/y
2/13/08
AttacPlanningCommissionMinuteshment 3
Page 3
Com . Multari said he appreciated the density, but the project is too tight t e able to
function equately. He agrees with Commissioner Carpenter in no upporting the
street yard a fence height exception.
Commr. Brodie agree ith'the other CommissZt could be reduced
in size to meet City standa
On motion b Commr. Stevenson ontinue t2008 to allow time
to address the Commission's conce er setbacks fence height, open space,
parking spaces/surfaces and other devOo-Onient standards. Seconded by Commr.
Ashbaugh.
AYES: Commrs. S enson, Ashbaugh, Multari,reenter, Brodie, and
Christian n
NOES: Non
RECUSED: ne
ABSENT- Commr. Gould-Wells
T e motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
3. 1290-1292 Foothill Blvd. and 123. 125. 137, & 175 Crandall Avenue. U/GP-
R/ER 109-05; General Plan amendment and rezone from Medium High Density
Residential (R-3) to High Density Residential (R-4), use permit to allow fraternity,
and environmental review; R-3 zone; Kevin Hauber, applicant. (Brian Leveille)
Associate Planner Brian Leveille presented the staff report, recommending that the
Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the use permit,
general plan amendment and rezone, and Negative Declaration to the City Council. He
highlighted the project's sustainable design features and noted the addition of a
condition from the Public Works Department to contribute a fair share of the traffic
improvements at Foothill and California Streets.
Commr. Multari questioned the access from the handicap space to the second floor and
if the unit's bathrooms were designed for handicap accessibility. He further stated that
he does not support the recommended condition from the Public Works Department.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Kevin Hauber, representative of the fraternity, supported the staff recommendation and
introduced the project team.
John Knight, RRM, discussed the project including the history of its design.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. /9
Planning Commission Minutes Attac2/13/08 hment 3
Page 4
Steve Gordon, President of the Fraternity, stated that the project meets the fraternity's
needs and respects the surrounding neighborhood. They have established a
neighborhood outreach plan.
Jan Howell Marx, neighbor, supports the fraternity and the re-zone to R-4.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Commr. Multari supported the land use in this location with its proximity to Cal Poly. He
also supported keeping the limit of the number of people. He also believed that the
first floor bathroom next to the dining room and at least one unit should be designed as
handicap accessible even if it's not required by City standards. He does not support the
recommended condition from the Public Works Department because the residents of
the fraternity house would reduce the impact on the intersection by walking and
bicycling to Cal Poly.
On motion by Commr. Multari to adopt a resolution recommending approval. of the
rezone, general plan amendment. and Negative Declaration to the City Council.
Seconded by Commr. Carpenter.
AYES: Commrs. Multari, Carpenter, Stevenson, Ashbaugh, Brodie, and
Christianson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Gould-Wells
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the
use permit and not include the Public Works Department recommended condition of
traffic improvements but to require that the bathroom..near the dinning room and one of
the units be designed as handicap accessible. Seconded by Commr. Brodie
AYES: Commrs. Stevenson, Brodie, Multari, Carpenter, Stevenson, and
Christianson
NOES: Ashbaugh
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Gould-Wells
The motion carried on a 5:1 vote.
Commr. Ashbaugh voted against the motion and felt that the Public Works Department
condition of traffic improvements should be a condition of the project.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities: Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
y-ago
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 32/13/08
Page 5
Commr. Stevenson said the project was noteworthy because of its Green Building
principles used in its design.
4. 11980 Los Osos Valley Road. ANNX/ARC/GP-R/ER 7-07; Discussion o the
scope of the EIR for a project to annex and develop vacant agricultural Ian along
os Osos Valley Road with a new retail center; Irish Hills Plaza East LLC, pplicant.
I Dunsmore)
Associate lanner Phil Dunsmore presented an overview of t e project and
environmenta ' sues identified in the EIR work scope.
Commr. Multari as d if archaeology is a potentially significant ' pact. He also asked
how does the wideni of the flood plain address downstre impacts and if it was
possible fora by-pass c nnel.
Commr. Ashbaugh question the vehicular access to ceanaire from Froom Ranch.
He also asked about the off-site itigation for open sp ce.
Commr. Brodie asked about the fu t a bridge a oss the creek and if there are bike
trails and connections in the area..
Neil Havlik, City Natural Resources Manag answered the Commission's questions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Carol Florence, representative of a applicant, introduced the project team and
encouraged the Commission to A ' the site.
Linda Seeley, San Luis O ' po, expressed concerns over the greenhouse gas
emissions and conversion of griculture land.
Rosemary Wilvert, Presi ent of Citizens for Planning Responsib' ity (CPR), referenced
her letter submitted to he Commission. She disagreed with the ff-site mitigation for
open space.
Michael Sullivan an Luis Obispo, agreed with the points of the CPR etter, including
the 50% open pace requirement. He believed that the project's impac on biological
resources ar significant.
Jan Ma , San Luis Obispo, supported the 50% open space requirement on e h of the
three i dividual sites as referenced in the General Plan.
Steven Marx, San Luis Obispo, agreed with the previous speakers and questions he
impacts of a large regional center on agriculture land.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment2/13/08
Page 6
Jerry Smith, San Luis Obispo, confirmed the flooding constraints of the property and the
wildlife habitat.
OMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Com . Multari recommended the revised staff report contain serioualtematives. He
also re ested the work scope explore housing possibilities, an al pmative site plan to
open up t he creek, agriculture versus wildlife habitat, green house gas emissions and
a look at all levant General Plan and zoning policies.
Commr. Ashbau would like to see creative solutions o the flooding problems,
protection of the cre , and respect to the adjacent neighbors.
Commr. Carpenter appre ' ted the public comments nd the importance of the General
Plan policies, the proposed 'dge over the creek arl any traffic impacts to the area.
Commr. Christianson was conce d about the/project's impacts on view shed and was
concerned about a project not prop o ing 50% f open space on-site.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
5. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
Deputy Director Doug Davids gave the agenda for ast of upcoming projects.
6. Commission
ADJOURNMENT: T meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Approved by t Planning Commission on February 27, 2008.
Ryan . Betz
Sup ising Administrative Assistant
Presenting Planner(s): Tyler Corey, Brian Leveille, & Phil Dunsmore
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
s
Attachment 4
Illllllllllllllllllhllll Ihllllllll city osAn luis ' oaspo ,
Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
March 6, 2008
Kevin Hauber
1131 Monterrey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: 1290 — 1292 Foothill Boulevard - U/GP-R/ER 109-05
General Plan amendment and rezone from a Medium High Density Residential
R-3) to High Density Residential (R-4), use permit to allow fraternity, and
environmental review.
Dear Mr. Hauber:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 13, 2008, recommended approval of your
request, based on the findings and subject to the conditions, as noted in the attached resolution.
The Resolution recommends approval of the use permit, general plan amendment/rezone and
negative declaration.
Due to the City Water allocation regulations, the Planning Commission's approval expires after
three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time
period. On request the Community Development Director may grant renewals for successive
periods of not more than one year each.
If you have any questions, please contact Brian Leveille at 781-7166.
Sincerely,
Doug Davidson
Deputy Director of Community Development
Attachment: Resolution #5499-08
Resolution #5500-08
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
FIRM Design Group —John Knight Phi Sigma Zeta House Corp
3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 P.O. Box 5141
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-5141
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO. 5499-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-4),FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1290, 1292 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND 1239 1257
137, 175 CRANDALL AVENUE; GP/R/ER 109-05
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
February 13, 2008, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/U/ER 109-05,
Kevin Hauber, applicant; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the General Plan
Amendment, rezoning, use permit; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact as prepared by staff for the related use permit application
U 109-05; and
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
Section 1. Findings.
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning is consistent with General Plan
Land Use and Housing Element policies to locate student housing projects, fraternities
and sororities, and generally more affordable housing in close proximity to the campus.
2. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3)
to High-Density Residential (R-4) will allow for density required for the proposed
fraternity use, and will provide for more viable future redevelopment of other properties
to be consistent with the above General Plan Policies and Land Use Element policy
stating that housing likely to attract faculty or students should be encouraged to locate
close to Cal Poly, to reduce commute travel.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will not be detrimental to the health,
safety and welfare of those living and working in the vicinity since it will not allow
incompatible land uses. The area of the proposed GP/R and project site is already
Resolution No. 5499-08 Attachment 4
Page 2
adjacent to other High-Density Zoned properties and is bordered by the Cal Poly campus
to the north.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission has recommended
adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the related application involving
potential development impacts,#U 109-05.
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and Rezone, based on the above findings:
On motion by Commissioner Multari, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Multari, Carpenter, Stevenson, Ashbaugh, Brodie, and Christianson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT:Commr. Gould-Wells
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 13th day of February, 2008.
Doug Davi on, Secretary
Planning Commission
y-mss
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO. 5500-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF
USE PERMIT APPLICATION#U 109-05, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW
A FRATERNITY HOUSE AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON
1292 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND 123 CRANDALL AVENUE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall; 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
February 13, 2008, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/U/ER 109-05,
Kevin Hauber, applicant; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the General Plan
Amendment, rezoning, use permit; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact as prepared by staff(ER 109-05); and
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
Section 1. Findings.
1. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of
persons living or working in the area, because limits on hours for events and numbers of
persons allowed on site will restrict activities and limit disturbances to neighbors.
2. The subject use is appropriate at the proposed location, and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses provided that the fraternity complies with all conditions at all times.
3. The proposed use conforms to the General Plan because it is a group housing use, which the
General Plan designates as potentially appropriate for Medium-High Density (R-3) and High-
Density (R-4) Residential areas.
4. The proposed use meets Zoning Ordinance requirements because it is a fraternity in a
Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) zone and proposed to be rezoned to High-Density
Residential (R-4), where fraternities are allowed with approval of a Planning Commission
use permit.
Resolution No.5500-08
Attachment 4
Page 2
Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend
adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council approval of application #U 109-05, and adopted of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration ER 109-05, as shown on attached Exhibit A with incorporation of the following
mitigation measures and conditions of approval:
Mitigation Measures
1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and
construction activities and vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment have the
potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and
intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated:
a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles
per hour or less;
b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be
disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line;
c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible
emissions from crossing the property line;
d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust
suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the
pile;
e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved
public road; and
f. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or
a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four (24) hours.
Conditions
1. The use permit shall not be effective until after the associated site development has been
completed consistent with the related Architectural Review Commission application
ARC 109-05, and given final occupancy.
2. Project plans submitted for Building Division review shall reflect handicap accessibility
for the bathroom near the dining room and one of the residential bedroom units.
3. No more than twenty nine (29) persons shall reside at the house at any time. Additions to
structures or additional occupancy shall require a use permit amendment. The applicant
shall allow the city to verify occupancy of the house by allowing an inspection of the
records or by a visual inspection of the premises. Any inspection shall be at a reasonable
time and shall be preceded by a 24-hour notice to the residents.
4. On site parking consistent with ARC approved plans shall be provided and maintained at
all times for the intended use.
7
Resolution No.5500-08
tJ Attachment 4
Page 3
5. The property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. All plant materials shall
be maintained and replaced as necessary.
6. The maximum number of persons allowed on the site for routine meetings and gatherings
is 44, except as specifically approved by the Community Development Director for
special events. For such special events, the applicant shall also submit a parking and
transportation plan.
7. No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities that would violate City Noise
Ordinances or other City regulations, or that would exceed the maximum 44 persons .
provisions noted in the above condition may take place between the hours of 10 p.m. and
9 a.m., except as approved by the Community Development Director.
8. The applicant shall institute and maintain a neighborhood relations program. The
neighborhood relations program shall be submitted and found complete to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. This plan
shall include at least the following elements:
Annual training of all members in community relations.
A program to inform neighbors of upcoming events at the house.
Submission of names and telephone numbers of responsible persons, including the
alumni president and chief financial officer, to the Community Development Department
and to the neighbors within two blocks of the house. Responsible persons shall be
available during all events and at reasonable hours otherwise, to receive and handle
complaints.
9. Evidence of implementation of said plan shall be submitted to the director for review
each year. Failure to exercise reasonable efforts to implement said plan may be grounds
for revocation of this permit.
10. Events, including meetings or parties, on site, shall be limited to those listed on a meeting
and activities schedule, submitted to and approved by the Community Development
Director in the fall of each year. Exceptions to this schedule must be approved by the
Community Development Director. If the Director determines the change is significant
and may have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, then it will be referred to the
Planning Commission for consideration.
11. Only signs permitted by the City and consistent with Sign Regulations may be displayed
on the premises unless approved by the Community Development Director for temporary
events.
12. The use permit shall be reviewed if any reasonable written citizen or Police or Fire
Department complaints are received by the City. In review of the use permit, the
Planning Commission may add, delete or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the
use permit. The Planning Commission may consider adding a condition requiring
fraternity officers to perform a community service project in the neighborhood.
Resolution No.5500-08 Attachment 4
Page 4
13. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct
of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to
constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or
welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for
revocation of this permit.
On motion by Commissioner. Stevenson, seconded by Commissioner Brodie, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Stevenson, Brodie, Multari, Carpenter, Stevenson, and Christianson
NOES: Ashbaugh
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Gould-Wells
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 13th day of February, 2008.
Doug Davi on, Secretary
Planning Commission
Attachment 5
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM # 3
BY: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner(781-7166)0 MEETING DATE: February 13, 2008
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community Development b
FILE NUMBER: U/GP-R/ER 109-05
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1290-1292 Foothill Blvd. and 123, 125, 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue
SUBJECT: Review of use permit to allow a fraternity, environmental review, and General Plan
Amendment and Rezone to change the designation of the project site and three surrounding
properties from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to High-Density Residential (R-4).
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the use permit, general plan amendment and
rezone, and negative declaration to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant is proposing to demolish
the existing fraternity building and
associated site improvements on the
approximately half-acre lot to construct a r T *1.
new 8,800 square foot 16-bedroom29-
bed) fraternity house. The project
requests a rezone from R-3 to R-4 to
allow additional density under group
housing standards. Under the current R-3
zoning there is 40 persons/acre allowed,
or 22 persons/acre for the .54 acre
project site. With the property rezoned to
R-4, the applicants design for 29 persons
on the site could be allowed since 55 persons/acre are allowed for the R-4 zone under group
housing standards. The application was originally submitted to include the project site and the
adjacent property to the west which is the Alpha Phi sorority. If approved, the rezone would have
left just two properties on the block zoned R-3. In staff's preliminary analysis, the same general
plan policies applicable to the applicant's proposal also applied to the other properties so staff
initiated a modification to the application to include the remaining properties zoned R-3.
The applicant's plans were reviewed on a conceptual basis by the ARC on December 17, 2007.
Provided the use permit and rezone is approved, the project will be brought back to the ARC for
y'-3 6
C, Attachment
U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha)
Page 2
final approval with project modifications that may be required from Planning Commission and
City Council review and/or previous ARC direction.
Data Summary
Address: 1290-1292 Foothill Blvd. and 123, 125, 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue
Applicant: Kevin Hauber, Phi Sigma Zeta Housing Corp.
Representative: John Knight, RRM Design Group
Zoning: R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential Zone)
General Plan: Medium-High Density Residential
Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was
recommended by the Director of Community Development on February 1, 2008 (Attachment 7).
Site Description
The 1292 Foothill portion of the property is currently developed with two structures (six
bedrooms total). On March 17, 1998, the City Council approved a use permit allowing the
fraternity use at the site with a maximum occupancy of 13. Because of constraints in providing
required parking, the occupancy has been limited to 10. Site improvements include a small
driveway and on-site parking for nine vehicles. The property at 123 Crandall Avenue is a single-
family residence with no special approvals for group housing uses.
There are three other properties included as part of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning
request with no changes to site development currently proposed. The property at 1290 Foothill is
26,520 square feet in size and is currently developed with a sorority. 135 Crandall Avenue is
6,300 square feet and developed with a 3-bedroom residence. The property at 137 & 175
Crandall Avenue is a 1.4 acre site with a twenty unit apartment complex (see Figure 1,below and
vicinity map, Attachment 1).
t,y, v
v Area of Rezone
4
f
Protectsife
w r
Figure 1. Proiect site and area of rezone
y.3/
i
Attachment 5
U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha)
Page 3
Proiect Description
At 1292 Foothill Blvd and 123 Crandall Avenue, the applicant is proposing to demolish existing
buildings and improvements on the project site to construct a new approximately 8,800 square-
foot, 29-bed fraternity house on the 0.54 acre site. The three story building includes 16-
bedrooms and has an apartment for house parents, kitchen and dining facilities, an office, and
library. Site improvements include a 23 space parking lot accessed from Foothill Boulevard and a
patio area with pergola(see Attachment 2,project plans).
There are three other properties included as part of the general plan amendment and rezoning
request with no changes to site development currently proposed. The property at 1290 Foothill is
26,520 square feet in size and is currently developed with a sorority. 135 Crandall Avenue is
6,300 square feet and developed with a 3-bedroom residence. The property at 137 & 175
Crandall Avenue is a 1.4 acre site with a twenty unit apartment complex. The proposed rezone to
R-4 would affect the density/development potential of these properties in the following way:
1) 1290 Foothill (existing.sorority): the existing maximum number of persons/acre allowed on
the site is 24. With R-4 zoning there would be a possible 33 persons allowed on the site under
group housing standards. 2) 135 Crandall Ave. (existing 3-bedroom SFR) has a development
potential of 2.60 density units (ex. three (1)-bedroom units + studio) With R-4 zoning there
would be 3.47 density units (four (1)-bedroom units + studio). 3) 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue
twenty unit apartment complex) could currently be developed with 25 two-bedroom units and
with R-4 zoning 33 two-bedroom units would be possible.
The applicant has made sustainability a high priority in the project design. An example of this
commitment to "green" design is the significant amount of pervious pavers and concrete to
reduce runoff impacts. Bioswales have also been incorporated into the design with the intent to
capture runoff and reduce sediment and contaminants that may flow into City storm drains.
The building form and materials use is reflective of project goals to create sustainable spaces.
The applicant's project description states the main building form is designed to accommodate an
alternative building system with high recycled content, insulating and sound deadening
properties, minimizes the use of wood (insulated concrete forms, structurally insulated panels, or
steel panel systems), and provides tall floor to floor heights with operable windows to improve
day lighting and passive ventilation. Fenestration and shading devices are designed to maximize
daylight, provide protection from high summer sun and accept low winter sun, and allows for
passive cross-ventilation.
It is notable that the applicant is pursuing what would be the first Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) certified building within the City limits. LEED is an
internationally recognized program for certifying buildings as to meeting standards for energy
efficiency and sustainable design. The applicant has provided a LEED-NC checklist
demonstrating the project has been designed to attain LEED Gold Status (Attachment 3). The
applicant's project description states: "The building is on course to easily achieve the LEED
4/-3a-
Attachment
U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha)
Page 4
Certified rating that is being pursued due to the sensitive design elements that began with the
proper siting of the building and have carried through to even the smallest of details such as
gutters and downspouts. The building's features all serve a purpose far beyond their outward
appearance."
ARC ReAew
The project was reviewed on a conceptual basis by the ARC on December 17, 2007. The ARC
was supportive of the project based mainly on its efforts for LEED certification to be at the
forefront in terms of energy conservation and sustainability (ARC minutes, Attachment 4). The
ARC requested additional information at final architectural review to include more details on
site improvements such as the fence and wall details, gate design, and trash enclosure (ARC
meeting actions, Attachment 5).
Use Permit
There is an existing use permit for the Lambda Chi fraternity at 1292 Foothill Boulevard
approved by the City Council in 1998. The use permit allows no more than 10 persons to reside
at the house at any time due to parking constraints. Since the current proposal involves
redevelopment of the site and now includes the adjacent property to the east (123 Crandall) a
new use permit is required. The Zoning Code allows the Planning Commission to take final
action on use permits, however in this case a recommendation to Council is appropriate because
the proposed fraternity use relies on City Council approval of the general plan amendment and
rezone.
Staff has included conditions of approval that are generally consistent with the prior use permit
except that site development conditions are not necessary to be included in the use permit with
final ARC approval being a requirement. Recommended conditions of approval for the use
permit include specific hours for meeting times and events, neighborhood relations program,
maximum numbers of persons allowed on site, and property maintenance provisions. The
resolution also includes a provision that routine meeting and gatherings may not exceed 44
persons. This number is based on a formula developed with review of other fraternity use
permits where the maximum number is based on 1.5 x the number of residents allowed
1.5 x 29 = 43.5 or 44). This condition notes that any special events involving more than 44
persons would require approval of the Community Development Director and the submittal of a
parking management plan.
EVALUATION
1. General Plan
The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed project for consistency with applicable General
Plan Policies. General Plan Policy is in italics followed by staffs response.
r23-3
Attachment 5
U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha)
Page 5
LU2.2.10. Compatible Development
Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with
that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should
be compatible with any nearby, lower density development.
Staffs Analysis: The proposed structure is consistent with the massing of other larger multi-
family structures to the north and south of the project site (see Attachment 6, massing exhibit).
The structure has been set below the existing grade to comply with the standard R-4 zone
maximum height of 35-feet. Though the architectural character of the proposed structure is a
departure from other development in the vicinity, the quality of its design and commitment to
include sustainable features sets a high standard for this site and future redevelopment projects in
the area. While the proposed structure sets a new standard, it can still be found to be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, consistent with the cited LUE policy.
L U 2.4.8.High Density Residential
High Density Residential development should be primarily attached dwellings in two-
or three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private
outdoor spaces. Other uses which are supportive and compatible with these dwellings
such as group housing, parks, schools, and churches may be permitted. Such
development is appropriate near employment centers and major public facilities.
p s wt{`•
s+
Yr',l ` X13
r * . Area of Rezone
tilt ;,{ •~ t
a R-3
1
i t R-3 to R4 rt s s!.
A t Ato Ria.
s ' A R4
R-4
R-1 tr: t
ft l
r R-4
t v
Figure Z Area zoning
i
j Attachment 5
U/TR/ER 109- 05 (Lamda Chi Alpha)
Page 6
Staffs Analysis: The applicant is pursuing High Density Residential Zoning (R-4) to allow the
project. The project is consistent with LU 2.4.8 since it proposes group housing in close
proximity to Cal Poly. The project also includes a general plan amendment and rezone of three
surrounding properties from R-3 to R-4. Staff recommended the project be modified to include
these properties since the project site and adjacent properties are adjacent to Cal Poly and in an
area of other R-4 zoned properties to the south and west (See figure 2, above). Rezoning these
properties would allow future redevelopment proposals to be consistent with General Plan
policies to locate student housing projects and fraternities and sororities in close proximity to the
campus.
Staff has also received an application to rezone the block to the east from R-3 to R-4 in
conjunction with the redevelopment of a specific site. This general plan amendment and rezone
would be brought to the Planning Commission and City Council in the next cycle of general plan
amendments.
LU 2.5.Affordable Housing
The City will help to conserve and increase residential opportunities for residents with
very low, low, or moderate incomes. As explained more fully in the Housing Element,
each project should contribute in some way to the conservation or production of
affordable housing, considering the opportunities and limitations for the project.
Staffs Analysis: The project is consistent with this policy since it provides residential
opportunities for students in close proximity to the Cal Poly campus.
L U Z 7.3:Amenities
Multifamily housing likely to be occupied by students should provide the amenities
which students seek in single family areas, to provide an attractive alternative.
Staffs Analysis: The project amenities are consistent with this policy since it provides kitchen,
laundry, media access,bike parking, and outdoor gathering areas.
L U 2. 7.4: Location
Housing likely to attract faculty or students should be encouraged to locate close to
Cal Poly, to reduce commute travel.
Staffs Analysis: The proposed project is consistent with the above policy to reduce commute
travel with its location approximately 200 yards from the Cal Poly campus.
LU2.7.5:Fraternities and Sororities
Fraternities and Sororities should be located, in order of preference, (1) on
campus; (2) in medium-high and high-density residential areas near the campus.
y-3S
1 Attachment 5
U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha)
Page 7
Staffs Analysis: The proposed project will allow for the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity to be
located in very close proximity to the Cal Poly campus. The project site is currently zoned
for medium-high density residential and is proposed for high-density residential zoning.
COS 4.3.4: Use of energy efficient, renewable energy sources
The City will promote the use of cost effective, renewable, non-depleting energy
sources wherever possible, both in new construction projects and in existing
buildings and facilities.
COS 4.3.6.Energy and efficiency in Green Building and new development
The City shall encourage energy-efficient "green buildings" as certified by the U.S.
Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
Program or equivalent certification.. "
Staffs Anal: The proposed project has been designed with energy efficiency in mind.
The project has been designed to meet the LEED "Gold" rating which represents
substantial reduction in energy use. The project incorporates renewable energy production
in the form of energy producing and hot water heating solar panels.
2. Community Design Guidelines
The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed project for consistency with applicable
Community Design Guidelines. Guidelines are in italics followed by a staff's response.
L Facade and roof articulation. A structure with three or more attached units should
incorporate significant wall and roof articulation to reduce apparent scale. Changes in
wall planes and roof heights, and the inclusion of elements such as balconies, porches,
arcades, dormers, and cross gables can avoid the barracks-like quality of long fat walls
and roofs. Secondary hipped or gabled roofs covering the entire mass of a building are
preferable to mansard roofs or segments ofpitched roof applied at the structure's edge.
Staff's Analysis: The project provides significant articulation and changes in roof and wall
planes which was primarily designed to achieve energy savings and LEED certification but also
creates visual interest and reduces the apparent mass of the structure. The project utilizes a
combination of exterior materials and colors with the use of horizontal siding, shingle siding,
vertical siding, and split face CMU. The project also incorporates metal roofing and Low-E
Windows w/shading devices. A color and materials board with samples of these materials will
be provided at the meeting.
5.4 B. Parking and driveways, Individual closeable garages are the preferred method for
providing parking for residents in multi family projects. If garages within the residential
structures are not provided, dispersed parking courts are acceptable.
1. Long, monotonous parking drives and large, undivided parking lots are discouraged.
y-3
i
Attachment s
U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha)
Page 8
2. The main vehicle access into a multi family site should be through an attractive entry
drive. Colored and textured paving treatment is encouraged outside of the public street
right-of-way, and within the project.
Staffs Analysis: The project does not provide individual closeable garages, but as a group
housing project, incorporating individual closeable garages is not necessarily an important or
feasible design option. The project does incorporate a significant amount of pervious paving to
both reduce runoff generated from the site and to enhance the appearance of the parking lot area.
3. Property Development Standards
The project requires two exceptions from development standards: (1) to allow fences and walls to
exceed the standard 6-foot maximum height; and (2) the trash and recycling enclosure is
designed to be within the Foothill Boulevard street yard setback. The ARC provided direction on
these items to minimize visual impacts from the trash enclosure and fence and wall heights that
will be reviewed with final ARC approval. Otherwise, the project is in compliance with R-4
property development standards in terms of height, coverage, yards and density.
4. Landscaping
The landscape plan is designed with native/drought tolerant plantings. In conformance with
LEED standards, the design is intended to require little or no watering after the establishment
period, provide shading for the hardscape of the site to decrease the heat island effect, and
provides for use of rainwater captured from the roof(see Landscape plan sheet L 1).
Summary _.
The proposed GP/R for the project site and surrounding properties seems appropriate at this
location because it would allow for increased opportunities for affordable housing and group
housing uses in very close proximity to Cal Poly, consistent with General Plan policy. The
Lambda Chi fraternity sets a desirable design precedent in the area since the project's design is
the first of its kind in the City based entirely on meeting the high "Gold Standard" of LEED
certification. For the other properties included in the rezone but not currently proposed for
redevelopment, future plans will be evaluated for consistency with City property development
policies, standards, and neighborhood compatibility.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or project modifications required.
2. Recommend denial of the project to the City Council. Action denying the application should
include the basis for denial.
f
t 1 Attachment 5
U/TR/ER 109-05 (Lamda Chi Alpha)
Page 9
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:—'Ivl t wrap Cyl.4-
Attachment 2: k o 4-
Attachment 3: LEED checklist
Attachment 4: ARC minutes
Attachment 5: ARC meeting actions
Attachment 6: Massing and project scale exhibits
Attachment 7: not aa,,df)
Attachment 8: no+- eo()
Attachment 9:
IGetmeil (no 4- a+1_4-a On e a()
GAIeveille/LambdaChi(1292 Foothill)ARC,G,RZ,ER U,FH/PCReport(LamdaChiAlpha)2,13,08
Att meet
LEED for New Construction v2.2
o
Registered Project Checklist
Project Name: Lambda Chi Fraternity House
Yas ? No
MHE su§tainabiia
Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required
as 0 Credit 1 Site Selection 1
1` L Credit 2 Development Density&Community Connectivity 1
Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1
1 =; Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 1
t'-Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage&Changing Rooms 1
Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting&Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 1
Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity 1
z R. Credit s.1 Site Development,Protect or Restore Habitat 1
r 7,--Credit 51 Site Development,Maximize Open Space 1
4 -a Crean 6.1 Storrnwater Design,Quantity Control 1
Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design,Quality Control 1
1: `• yx Credit 7.1 Heat island Effect,Non-Roof 1
51Z:::::=_;G'Crede 7.2 Heat Island Effect,Roof 1
IJi s1;Credit a Light Pollution Reduction 1
Ym t N,
ME
V sem: : credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 1
g ;Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation 1
S fit 'z+ Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1
A'-1 :;':n-J Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction,20%Reduction 1
fir,,X1.11' CTed t 3.2 Water Use Reduction,30%Reduction 1
8 3
Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Required
Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Required
Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management RegLdmd
Note for EAct:All LEED for New Construction prolects registered after Jrure 29P,2007 are required to achieve at least two(2)polnm under EAct.
Credit 1 O mite Energy Performance 1 to 10
10.5%New Buildings or 3.5%Existing Building Renovations 1
14%New Buildings or 7%Existing Building Renovations 2
17.5%New Buildings or 10.5%Existing Building Renovations 3
21%New Buildings or 14%Existing Building Renovations a
5 24.5%New Buildings or 17.5%Existing Building Renovations 5
28%New Buildings or 21.%Existing Building Renovations s
31.5%New Buildings or 24.5%Existing Building Renovations 7
35%New Buildings or 28%Existing Building Renovations a
38:5%New Buildings or 31.5%Existing Building Renovations 9
42%New Buildings or 35%Existing Building Renovations 10
Credit z Onsite Renewable Energy 1 to 3
2.5%Renewable Energy 1
7.5%Renewable Energy 2
3 12.5%Renewable Energy 3
Z,A, .fi Credl3 Enhanced Commissioning 1
MM
Credit a Enhanced Refrigerant Management 1
Credl 5 Measurement&Verification 1
Credits Green Power 1
continued...
y-3
A*tachmer,t
Y= 7 No
6 4
Prereq 1 Storage&Collection ofRecyclables Required
5 _ Credit 1.1 Building Reuse,Maintain 75%of Existing Wails,Floors&Roof 1
j:,Credit 1.2 Building Reuse,Maintain 100%of Existing Walls, Floors&Roof 1
a '7' Credit 1.3 Building Reuse,Maintain 50%of Interior Nonstructural Elements 1
Credit 2.1 Construction Waste Management,Divert 50%from Disposal 1
77 ,;Jr,Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management,Divert 75%from Disposal 1
Credit 3.1 Materials Reuse,5% 1
Credit 3.2 Materials Reuse,10% 1
r 1-• " Credit 4.1 Recycled Content,10%(post-consumer+%pre-consumer) 1
r .Credit 4.2 Recycled Content,20%(post-consumer+'A pre-consumer) 1
Credit 5.1 Regional Materials, 10%Extracted,Processed&Manufactured Regio 1
p` Credit 5.2 Regional Materials,20%Extracted,Processed&Manufactured Regio 1
J= s•"_'Credit Rapidly Renewable Materials 1
1`m -"Credit 7 Certified Wood 1
Yes 7 No
Prereq 1 Minimum IAQ Performance Required
Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke(ETS)Control Required
I. Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1
7y' Credit Increased Ventilation 1
1a :x Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction 1
A i .%Credd 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy 1
1;Credit4.1 Low-Emitting Materials,Adhesives&Sealants 1
Credit 4.2 LOW-Emitting Materials, Paints&Coatings 1
kik Credit 4.3 LOW-Emitting Materials,Carpet Systems 1
tWi
Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials,Composite Wood&Agrifiber Products 1
Credit s Indoor Chemical&Pollutant Source Control 1
c _ Xr Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, lighting 1
x Credit sz Controllability of Systems,Thermal Comfort t
ate 74 Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort,Design 1
6r;Credit7.2 Thermal Comfort,Verification 1
l F Credit e.1 Daylight&Views,Daylight 75%of Spaces 1
Credit e.2 Daylight&Views,Views for 90%of Spaces 1
Yes 7 No
Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design:Provide Specific Title 1
Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design:Provide Specific Title 1
Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design:Provide Specific Title 1INCreditCredit1.4 Innovation in Design:Provide Specific Title 1
2 LEECP Accredited Professional 1
Y•a 7 Np
MME
Certified: 26-32 points, Silver: 33-38 points, Gold: 39-51 points, Platinum: 52-69 points
y-y
Attachment 5
n• n n n: o n v Ul
S $ ': 8 Hwy d
W: N N .41 N. r w V V w N• A A •- •
CL
3 N -• m N: + r N A 41 :N: +
T
s o
0 :
e 3 m 3
c :m :Z:m :ZiW:3 : c3 c a m m
e: :F : F m 'm : 8: ; °: ;y; ;;
m .m .m . 3 m w : w :<: =
c :ao:F :m:F :m:J : m J m m :m : m Fc a: a
c : ;JA A : : m mm.=.mmo :m: m
c
oJ S
m : m a: O
J
D d
o ;:m :J •
c ;m ; 'c o
n :m: m m m :n ; °.
P .m
ho? ':
3A.:oN1 '..\
3m°.:
mNW'::
m9':
m=
m :: O 3N : ° ::m£ ;.
n w :- :• -
Z 0d •'0 0
m d ;&0 :p: DOO. ? Nd : M. :m. »
dr•
O O :O: O :m : C1 3
oi Z o ; n O :p: m o ;n: c 3 J
S:C:Q m o o :mi c c o_ m :m n 3 :w:
a.EL
oo
p J m .
0 .
o
m o :
n m
3
i
an
c
P
v r
00 0 0 O o mSm
o x p
o mv
nm
a03
M O O O ZO
NJy F, m m + C -f o d D y m .-4 D m xi a v o 1 d -i m ( c -i -, w -/ a D 9
o m m - u m m m m O
m J J n J N m m a s >• J >• O m S J- w , o >• o fOam_ 3 e < m- m am a m < m m m m a m c m
ffm °. H30 a mm. 3 wm. mv mnE'm m mo 0o w
9
cm m m m '
m
m o' 3o m
w J m S J m w S 9 y w
3 a, a. N. J. m N w
g = =aw •c £ w aE m Fw 3 om.3 3 mm m v .a •cm m m mm J
N m n m m m o a 3 m o m y n J 0 o J ^ w o o .n» » o
O w v 9 D N S e o . m m a c m 9 0• w J .g
0 w F <=, 3 m
a =
m f. = v _0 m s 3 w m < m F 9
m o
c.w m f.c m m v
m m w c m - m m m m
m £
m w m n 3 - f,£, m is
sm w
m n_ J o np = w m s S ^• m c m - 5 0 -
wm o mom m mm 3m o cm cm mm Xn m
J xo; ''c o co :m w epi 'o_ 0 J my n
mt
c caw 3 °•n £ J
v rim m w _ M $ m me mm 3 m o m aw 3amveJ.-. m w n c 3 m n a w m n a m J a m v00
m m >m Jm m = m 3 43 = ° m m nm n £ m 3 c o R '`< _ c
c 3 m m x:: mm S a m am <m v c -m' c F_. m io m
d 6 n 3 m N m C a a. m
m
6 N m U OF O 'a
O
d 0 N m m m O m V w -mJ S m
Q N J G
a^ J S m m O y a m m m J 0'
J ,' y 5 M C m .
m y m •m J m 'p m a F v °-' m ^'m
e 3. m n m a w o g O < A N °c a J
m s o n J m m 4. n X >'m 3 m. ' a '< oErmamm %_.o m m e n
J a NDn m '< m m . 3 m mN Ma' m n » m ma J =m
mn
3, m 3 m m < >:m
m
m y m m om m'
m ao mm m,f m m
N a3 .Qm '' mm N.o 1 < mm m a
m a o'3. w o f m_`3 m mQ a £ Nm
mn mo m m am b7_
H TT11 v m m N 0 m N o c J o £ m' N S- m m w u m w 3 o a v
D w m O m 6 C m J .< m N G m Q X J 'm N N C O m
J J N D S O m w• N a O w m
a ' n a c 3 o m 'o m c -3 o m ni ni m _.» m E S a o s o m 3 cJt'
0
m m a
mymmmJm3. J.m a m c 3 3 Q m m
m m m
Um m w nN .Ni .. x =N < a'O
G » mN SO m ma
Jm
O
F
yJD
D o amo
M m 0 , = m - m m
9. Fn m°
mFomm
nmm
a
v •c D a c m J.m ^m
Vt n J w m _ 0
m m m w a$ as 'a oS a o » cv x 'm
M
a m ¢.. o cul £
uci 63ox ° m m 35 n
N
mm
77 m m Q o o m n J a o 3 a
n
w
o
w N m c
o( c,
o J c g m m w a m y f• J
m nil N V a 0
dl
6 J S m m 3 w J S w
0 3 a
v a s o m v m y o v m o c0i S v, C m
J n
m• w1D w m m n o m al
0o
m
m m n aF
s " N
of o m o c J
n m m o 5. wa S. m m •c
n
7
A:tachme^t
n ° :0: n o;
O m N N N A w w N N + + S w N •L• Ll N
s m
a
p 11 ----------Z1
C .'..QCJ : .
m 0 :c:c
oN:..
1.P. -
0::\.-
tT.;
m :R• JJ ; a ae
EL:E: N m m
m j j
e. e ; :
mC A:.11:'T:Z;e 'Z:' :Z:e
0 :v:m :m ;m :
E ::E :M :*Dw2R. m p m .o .o ;p:F .m :£ .m :£ .m
m 3 3 n 0 :A:z: z:z:z:m £ 3 •a: n : •m • m .m :ca :pe:F :y:F
J m m o o •m m m m m m m n m J ;c :c c
J J :N N
J J w of N o m p '.p:p m m.a m dam S
n^m s m m ;m ;m
CIP w+
N - :\:a m m
3 •
d :J :m . m m w : w :0 w O7
m .
3PL5:x5: :5: r
2 m m .•J : 6. EL pp:EL
a5 :J :ELm : .m :n
a n o o 2 m: O '.ZI p :M:oo M 7C
x c' 'c c c a :m :8 :mp 5 :`m_ mC.8 :mwyN • w .:w : ' N .v a :m:
A 8 :
n 0 M m
a
0 0
C
d m
n
eR
ar
Sm
o o
v w
m
0a
2 O O O O
3os o F.3 cn= ' o 3D3:> m m m » c.m mm m3 m. 3m 3 '" mm e
9
3 ?v
emi m_m 3v mmm m'^v Nm
30
3J v o v mmv WoJ.y - v —wv`< me m °c
o. cncp m o cw cw o o _'o •c o•o £ o v mo mmm mm m m
mom awo o3io' s m io' vm
32r 32r
A m 25.o a a. om3mm mtD ms
o= Jwm' m m'P o.0 ao = = may p m c
Amy
sv m9• D
am m 3 maw
0
2m o o :E F F 5m 3 J 3 53 m m cv oim v
n m o = ,n a m n m o m m o w V
Wim - 3mm wo _. mam = mm_
7v,
0
o35c3n
y>vdm8my cc
mp.
mosm3—
0
35n"°
m
voo
vtoJFv£
acwmm
cm wm mm
3ma
9nooooawSJy
o
aomo5o<0F2°
1
o'
mmm<
mmmvvommom3Smmcmoa3 ' m m oCwdmv°
3 m 0
m , o
mmm, ag.5 ; 3m 1 mamoa £ FF ,
nm—m m @5 m to m
mUm m3o0mmomm
3 oS 0S oS mwcma
cp>
no
m 'g 3 o cm m m
w '
SC ON
6N d 1rym mm mw mw — OC C Q•<
Nw N
m- s 3,o_= m >• °
y
J m m J mwwwo, m m m av ao- ov G' v m Dm
o m N o
c m m m m m o m 0
m m 3 m o c c 'o m•°< a=. o m' o m a ' o
w Q m 3 m ° ^ 0 m °a< o J m m 8 m a Nom m Ja m mmM00mmma— °•n m_ 5 c a ,.p an d N m F, 3 m m m
m ?o m'mm mm S mm mm mm am am aJ £ c m T3. O = ° N
m o n
o .cf m n m p,m Q N m m a .p. O w m y
G m m N'N w m 0 m J_
N w.
6
m.
6 m e
a
m'
m
m m d
m3 aw
m'
m3 y
Nm
m°
m:,
S?.°" aanmm
c'»
wsm aa3•
S'.
y°
wc
m33m' vmom
mmaHTJa
F y < m w
a m Da° 0'
m co jsmd0m
oom >> mao no o- o
m 3 a
0 3
5
w o m ZNm
m j »3 m
ma m
c
Jomm
e
w m
o J c
N
Attachment 5
n' n•n;n; n; n q n• n n n n ; n ;n; n ;n; n ; n n n n n v n
fn RV
m 0 '
3 :3: 3 3 m oc m 7
a:PC m ° 3 7 ,2i3i ' imjmim ai ! ipiEiD A_ °
o S
0 1 0 tnm^i 3 t31 3 i $ D t D a m v 'cm_. a d
3.:w n o
m :m . m <:
9 A3E E 0 CD
W m W m m y
a o 3 3 c: m m o o °
y :< :c '< :< o m m .y C7 :C'f: D m m fD n 3
o m: m:m:m 'O' vt ; o r ... 3 :v' : o m
n ;n :tf .0 ^: Nw CO
o :o g :H S p O
o
0
n
c. n o
3 v I c y ?
Q
Bio
v3
v roSm
o io p
O U
TT JJ v
O
M OS.
O O O O O O
m i m m
n Cyc n 8 (] DK DK yj mj vc Wm .0EL .t1.Nmaaaaamn30 —a Ja g'U a N
cFm `
om"om.
n.. n'
o.' `am `o'
tlmW1romy oa 3 mo
vyam
aa L 3m
pa Opm
m.
m =_''
m1mO
n a m o o <
W nn
A
oam F
m_
o D
x
o
a9mo0 0
oomoW
y3
3 FsW neK .o
m W
T
O
Oym A 0
y3<
aavam So3F °mjnnm<
oacny fpO6
mm
D
b N N N W N
1 W C O m m m 6 N Q A 9 ^ y
a O W O m m . m 3 j O =-
n
5 c o c y n 3 Q 3 O= m o >• o c
9 0 0 0 0 , >• m m a °ai < a _ °—'
o, -' ^ 3 W y 9
m S y
0 W y y N W S c a m m m
y C C m 9 n FL, W m W m W y O N W
0 3.G W m C N 6 S
Z
O
m J y O j 8 N 00
a
o' 0 3 n a a o m n y m 3 _'F _.F y n.< o m
5.
m yi H m 0 n A N m
c
m o O 'm m 3 < F m'<
n W = o O m (7 n < 2< m = m mig
O m S 3
s o 3 o o•m m' ° m A
o
m S m Om ^ W
a
W O
6 6
n3mmoodaa ao
m 0
cOm
xym
SJ o
ma m macm
o
3, f 0 m
3 3 m
M
c c a m o mn > j c D m m
ro a m 5 S S. W m m m ' 4
W W + Svn m m m o•
n v 3 m m o w N s g o m m
m
rn c n>> c` m F m W W _ m m 0
v
W v = 2 c
io'
y 0 m rn
o
a n
a m o m
m o
w
y-y3
Draft ARC Minutes ttac n&WIMent J
December 17, 2007
Page
I
c s{afrcpor4"
Commission liked the project's site layout and Spanish Revival architectural style
and nd it to be consistent with the Railroad District Plan.
Chairperson udreau supported the proposed smooth plaster finish findi it to be
more attractive a authentic to the selected architecture of the building. a had some
concerns about thea ty to find windows with true divided lights.
Commr. Wilhelm stated t the project was really attra ' e and would be an
improvement to the comer site.
Vice Chair Root noted his support for project de "gn and suggested that there be a
graceful" transition between the concr a boardwalk portions of the public
sidewalk.
Commr. Hopkins agreed with the pre
i
us comm e s and found that the project was
consistent with the design guideline included in the R ' oad District Plan.
On motion by Commr. Wilh to grant final aDDroval to the.. oiect based on findings,
and subeect to conditions4s recommended by staff. Seconded Commr. Ho kins..
AYES: Co rs. Hopkins, Wilhelm, Root, Boudreau, Palazzo, an ambitsis
NOES: one
RECUS None
ABS T: Commr. Howard
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
2. 1292 Foothill_Boulevard. ARC 109-05; Conceptual review of new fraternity
building; R-3 zone; Kevin Hauber, applicant. (Brian Leveille)
Associate Planner Brian Leveille presented the staff report. He noted that the project
was scheduled for a conceptual review to gather comments on the overall site and
building design prior to the Planning Commission's review of the required use permit
and request for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning. He recommended that the
project be continued to a date uncertain with the Commission providing direction on
noted issues included in the staff report.
Kevin Hauber, applicant, described the project history and noted the acquisition by the
fraternity of the adjacent property on Crandall Way. He reinforced the fraternity's long-
term commitment to being on the site and to creating a sustainable project. He pointed
out that lowering the building into the site would help to attenuate noise impacts.
Jim Duffy, applicant's representative, presented a slide show with photos of existing
buildings in the vicinity of the site, a building massing model, colors and materials
board, project features providing energy efficiency, examples of wall designs, and the
proposed designs of the solid waste enclosure and stair tower. He noted that the solid
waste enclosure was proposed close to the street for better access and that they
y-yam
Draft ARC Minutes Attachment J
December 17, 2007
Page 3
planned on using drought-tolerant landscaping. He responded to questions regarding
the elimination of the accessible ramp in the street yard, noting that the raised front
entry feature and plaza would be retained and that there would be terraced landscaping
in the street yard.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Neighbors of the project, John & Opal Rich, expressed concerns with construction
impacts and the durability of proposed property line walls.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The ARC was very supportive of the attractive, modern building and its efforts to be at
the forefront in terms of energy conservation and sustainability. They also appreciated
the applicant's efforts to keep the building lower in profile. Most of the remaining
concerns with the project design focused on the following: techniques to minimize the
height and scale of combined walls and fences along the property lines; provide a
screened and functional trash enclosure; and details of the parking lot gate.
Commr. Wilhelm liked the project design and applauded the applicant on its energy
efficiency. He felt that "in-plane" solar panels would be more aesthetically pleasing and
would notsignificantly affect solar gain.
Vice Chair Root supported the applicant's goal of becoming LEED-certified. He liked
the idea of incorporating battered walls to minimize the scale of the proposed property
line walls and suggested that both elevations and sections of the walls return at the time
of final review.
Commr. Hopkins stated that the project was appropriately located so close to Cal Poly
and that it would be a positive addition to the neighborhood.
Commr. Palazzo expressed concems with the proposed location of the trash enclosure
so close to the street in terms of unsightliness and potential impacts to the storm drain
system. He mentioned that the building architecture appeared a bit too avant-garde for
its traditional neighborhood setting. He appreciatedthe authentic quality of the
proposed materials.
Commr. Kambitsis liked the 21st-
century architecture and wanted to see a more
appropriate location for the trash enclosure and details of the gate design when the
project returned for final approval.
Chairperson Boudreau also supported the modem architectural style of the building. He
wanted to see the trash enclosure design coordinate with the architecture of the
building. He liked the curved patio design expressing that it added nice usable space
and provided a softening affect to the project appearance.
yam
Draft ARC Minutes AttachmentDecember17, 2007
Page 4
On a motion by Commr. Root, the project was continued to a date uncertain with
direction. Seconded by Commr. Kambitsis.
AYES: Commrs., Root, Boudreau, Palazzo, Hopkins, Wilhelm and Kambitsis
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Howard
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
4. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects..
5. Commission:
A. Recent Project Review— Lessons Learned
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. to the regular meeting of
the ARC scheduled for January 7, 2008, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room of
City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted by
Pam Ricci,
Recording Secretary
y-y
Architectural Review Commission ArtaC]i)I'llAhvwnmeru 5
Page 5
c -C u;repay +
vid fora nominal fee. City staff will revi" iaeo anu uctuw ;
whether any repairs are ne es e to the City shall be clearly labeled
with the applicant's name, co n ormation, ame and address, and the
name of the com performed the video inspection.
2. 1292 Foothill Boulevard. ARC 109-05; Conceptual review of new fraternity
building; R-3 zone; Kevin Hauber, applicant..(Brian Leville)
The ARC continued action on the project to a date uncertain with the following direction
regarding modifications to be included in plans submitted for final architectural review:
1. Fences and Walls: Plans shall include sections and elevations of a revised wall and fence
design that softens the walls visually and minimizes their apparent mass with landscaping,
battered or stepped walls with planters, and/or different finish materials.
2. Trash and Recycling_ Alternative placement and/or design to ensure the prominent location
of the trash and recycling enclosure does not detract from the project.
3. Accessibility Ramp: Remove the long accessibility ramp leading from Crandall Way, and
revise landscaping to include terraced planters as noted by the architect at the hearing.
4. Gate Design: Submit more details on the gate design and provide continuity between it and
other streetscape design elements such as the railings and trash enclosure.
5. Scale and Context: Provide more information with the submittal of final plans as to the scale
and context of the project in its neighborhood setting.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
mc I
1 1
CD
r-ep
t
1
I
I
b
4
03
It
Y
r
rf
y Y
II
u
F
i
Y
LA
t
r:
i t
b/ti`
T
YVYL 4
I
1
In \ 1 1/1
N
n IJt
r i
F dlilh. 11
AA, ;
e
n;
L
P •
I
w
l'
NOIII
3I M
r
4
41.
Yli J II
fL'
AI)
t
M
ft
lM
O
d
o' . V+
Ott
t • rt3tiYC '
I
n
t
si.y.i4 - T•I 11
i
rev tau
14
s
1
R
I
1 r
1
I
1+!T
1
y
j. .
l
t t
N
4
i4
r
44
t 1
ijft
µ
ur
rn
Cz
f
lila:
ILII,
q
K
v
Bull!
Bill
a.
O'er
r
W
uI
P
l
1
a
L1-.
Y
r
µ+
a.Yk l
l f r1Er
wi a
f
fiv
lit
Oil g,-u : ,
moi.
to
V
1 ktachmc,t 5
7
2 m tx
D D
r17,
T t
y
f r -
a',.,
PA,
t
CL
CID
rte
A 7
O
v W t k
ff
Y
1 t
i QQ i t '
4 Elm
ii hI IIIIIINNIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ia ty of sAn it Attachment 6
Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 109-05
1. Project Title: Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity
2.Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3.Contact Person and Phone Number:
Brian Leveille, Associate Planner(805) 781-7166
4.Project Location: 1290, 1292 Foothill Boulevard (APN 052-071-004, 011) and 123, 125, 137,
175 Crandall Avenue (APN: 052-071-024, 031)
5.Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Kevin Hauber
1131 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6.General Plan Designation: Medium-Density Residential
7.Zoning:R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential)
8. Description of the Project: General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the designation of
1290, 1292 Foothill Boulevard and 123-175 Crandall Avenue from Medium-High Density
Residential (R-3) to High Density Residential (R-4).
At 1292 Foothill Blvd and 123 Crandall Avenue, the applicant is proposing to demolish existing
buildings and improvements on the project site to construct a new approximately 8,800 square-
foot, 29-bed fraternity house on the 0.54 acre site. The three story building includes 16 bedrooms
and has an apartment for house parents, kitchen and dining facilities, an office, and library. Site
improvements include a 23 space parking lot accessed from Foothill Boulevard and a patio area
with pergola (see Attachment 2, project plans). There are three other properties included as part
of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning request with no changes to site development
currently proposed. The property at 1290 Foothill is 26,520 square feet in size and is currently
developed with a sorority. 135 Crandall Avenue is 6,300 square feet and developed with a 3-
bedroom residence. The property at 137 & 175 Crandall Avenue is a 1.4 acre site with a twenty
unit apartment complex.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2W
EThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
AttachMent 6
9.Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is 23,576 square feet (.54 acre) in size.
Surrounding land uses consist of a sorority to the west (zoned R-3, part of rezone proposal,
multi-family apartments to the north (R-3), a fraternity to the east across Crandall Avenue (R-3),
and multi-family apartments to the south across Foothill Blvd (R4). The project site appears to
be predominantly where students reside and is approximately 200 yards from the Crandall
Avenue entrance to Cal Poly.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone (1290, 1292 Foothill & 123-175
Crandall)
Architectural Review of fraternity development at 1292 Foothill and 123 Crandall.
Use Permit for fraternity use(Group housing)
Environmental Review
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None.
r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
y-5s
Attachment 6
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards _ & Hazardous Recreation
Materials
X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies fora
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period.shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
Attachment 6
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, X
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
IS O R
Signature Date
Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development For: John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
1-1 ,e-
7 -. 7
Attachment 6
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1.A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact siniply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2.All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3.Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4.Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than.Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5.Earlier analysis maybe used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include.a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST POOH
y-5
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than 90
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 109 05
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited X
to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
a-b)Foothill Blvd east of California Blvd is designated as having moderate scenic value in Figure 11 of the Conservation and
Open Space Element(COSE). The project does not block views of hills to the east as seen from the Foothill Blvd roadway
and has been designed to meet standard height requirements for development in the High Density Residential Zone(R4).
c-d)The proposed structure is consistent with the massing of other larger multi-family structures to the north and south of the
project site. The structure has been set below the existing grade to comply with the R-4 zone maximum height of 35-feet.
Though the architectural character of the proposed structure is a departure from other development in the vicinity,the quality
of its design and commitment to include sustainable features sets a high standard for this site and future redevelopment
projects in the area. While the proposed structure sets a new standard, it can still be found to be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. The project was conceptually reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission who supported
the massing and architectural character of the proposed structure. The project will also receive a final review by the
Architectural Review Commission to ensure consistency with General Plan Policy for compatible development and
compliance with Community Design Guidelines.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of 6, 10 X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to X
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation
a) b) c) The project site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in
effect on the project site. Development of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland, and may relieve pressure to
develop similar land outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line.No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources
are anticipated with development of the project site.
Conclusion:No Impact.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STuDy ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
lt h
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia y Potentially Less Than o
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 109 05
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 11, 12 X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozoneprecursors)?
Evaluation
a) b) c) e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PMIo(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter)and Ozone air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors
be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo
County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a
comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well
as from motor vehicle use. Conservation & Open Space Element Program 2.3.2 states that the City will help the APCD
implement the Clean Air Plan.
Motor vehicles account for about 40%of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant
source of PMIo. Thus,a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures designed to
reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. The project meets many of the goals stated in the CAP
because it will provide infill development of group housing within the City's Urban Reserve Line and the project site is
located in the City's urban center with convenient access to commercial services and transit routes, reducing the need for
occupants of the project to rely on vehicles for all of their transportation needs.The project is also located within 300 yards of
the Crandall Avenue entrance to Cal Poly State University which will reduce or eliminate the need for residents of the project
to make motor vehicle trips on a daily basis.
According to the APCD's"CEQA Air Quality Handbook," land uses that cause the generation of 10 or more pounds per day
PPD) of reactive organic gases, oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter(PM 10), or 50 lbs/per day or
more of carbon monoxide (CO) have the potential to affect air quality significantly. Table I- I of this document states that it
takes approximately 50 apartment units to generate over 10 pounds of these pollutants. Assuming the site is developed with
the 16-bedroom fraternity structure, future development would be of a size that is well below APCD's air quality significance
thresholds.Therefore,the project and resulting development will not generate significant operational air quality impacts.
In evaluating construction related impacts, the SLO APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states the threshold level of grading
activity to generate required mitigation measures is 9,100 cubic yards/day for reactive organic gases (ROG) and 2,000 cubic
yards/day for oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Projects involving grading of an area greater than 4.0 acres require PM10
mitigations. The proposed project grading scope is well below these thresholds since the project site is less than 1.0 acre and
grading will not exceed 2,000 cubic yards/day.
The APCD does not require consultation for potential asbestos dust related impacts unless the project site is over 1.0 acre in
size.
d)No objectionable odors will emanate from the project.
Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
l_Zc 0
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than o
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 109 05
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Mitigation Measures
1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities and vehicle
emissions from heavy duty equipment have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards
for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated:
a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less;
b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent
visible emissions from crossing the property line;
c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing
the property line;
d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when
material is not being added to or removed from the pile;
e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and
f. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped
vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or 6 X
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Evaluation
a), b) According to the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game, there are no species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 8 INITIAL STuoY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentr y Potentially Less Than " IV
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 109 05
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) There are no Heritage trees on the project site and no tree removals are proposed which would conflict with Tree
preservation policies.
d) The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the proposed project will not interfere with the
movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor.
e) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat
conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan.
f) The project will have no adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands.
Conclusion:No Impact.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 16- 19 X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a)The project site is not a historic resource.
b) The project site is not located on or near a known sensitive archeological site.
c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site.
d) The project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
y—le z
Inn rQ
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 109-05 Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 6,7 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
Evaluation
a) b) The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in
an inefficient manner. Future site development must comply with the policies contained in the Energy chapter of the General
Plan's Conservation and Open Space Element(COSE). The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement
of the California Energy Code, which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential
construction. Future development of this site must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals
through Architectural Review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive means of
reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to
maintain comfort. The proposed project has been designed to exceed Energy Code standards by meeting Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design(LEED)Standards.
c) There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the
State.
Conclusion: No impact.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOII.S. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 5, 21,
effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: 24
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction?X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Evaluation
a), c) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic
Province, which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive
folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the
pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
t CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
7-'W'3
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sourcesPotentially Potentially Less Than o"
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 109-05
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County,the special Studies
Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near
Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos
Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this
fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are
considered"active". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the
Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12
miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of"High Seismic
Hazards,"specifically Seismic Zone 4,which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected
to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. New structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact, the
Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an
earthquake.
b) Future site development must comply with the standards and requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code(UBC)
that address soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Compliance with the UBC will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
c), d)The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction,which is true
for most of the City, and the site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the UBC (2001).
Recommendations included in a soils report, which is required to be submitted as part of a building permit application for
future site development, are sufficient to mitigate potential hazards from building in these areas. In general, the presence of
expansive soils requires additional base for roadways and flat work and deeper footings for building foundations.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 5, 7, X
through the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous 23
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
toile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury,X
or death, involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
y-4/Xy
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 109 05
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a) The project does not involve the routine use,transport,or disposal of hazardous materials.
b),d)The project will not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
c) The project is not located within '/< mile of an existing or proposed school, but is located within a % mile of California
Polytechnic State University. The project will not involve hazardous emissions or include handling of hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,substances or waste.
e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5.
f) The project site is approximately 2. 5 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport,outside the Airport Land Use
Plan Area.
g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires.
Conclusion: No Impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 6, 15, X
requirements? 22
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g. The production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
C) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters
including, but not limited to, wetlands, riparian areas, ponds,
springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays,
ocean,etc.)?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
y-s
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than " Nb'" '
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 109 05
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X
ground or surface waters?
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality,X
temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity?
Evaluation
a), b) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Site redevelopment will be
served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources.
c) d) h) i) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's
Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within
the City's watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-development
site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off. This can be achieved through a combination of detention and use of
pervious surfaces to increase water absorption on-site. Compliance with the requirements of the plan are sufficient to
mitigate any potentially significant impacts of the project in the area of water quality and hydrology. Plans submitted for a
building permit application will be evaluated by the Public Works Department and must be designed in a manner that is
consistent with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan.
e) f), g) The project site is not located within the 100-year flood zone per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of I X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservationplans?
Evaluation
a) The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project would
change the land use designation of 1290 & 1292 Foothill Blvd, and 123 Crandall Avenue from Medium-High Density
Residential (R-3) to High-Density Residential (R-4). 1290 Foothill blvd is included in the rezone proposal but there are no
current development plans. The proposed rezone from R-3 to R-4 for 1292 Foothill and 123 Crandall would allow the
proposed 29 residents of the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity house, where only 22 residents would be allowed tinder standard
persons-per-acre of the R-3 zone. A similar incremental increase would be allowed for 1290 Foothill (where no development
is currently proposed) if the rezone to High-Density Residential (R-4) is approved. The proposed rezone would not conflict
with land use plans or policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
b)c)The project will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plans.
Conclusion: No Impact.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of "unacceptable" noise 4, 14, X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 23
Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
y—tle &
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Les L J
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 109-05 Mitigation
Incorporated
b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation
a) The project will not generate unacceptable noise levels or expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established
in the Noise Ordinance. The project site is located outside of any noise contour in the City's Noise Element that would
require mitigation.
b)Construction of the proposed project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the
City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. If noise
levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds, the property owner would be subject to possible citations. The proposed
fraternity group housing use will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and conditions of approval and performance
standards will be required to ensure the expanded fraternity use does not generate excessive noise levels which could be a
nuisance to surrounding properties.
c)The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibration.
d) The project site is approximately 2.5 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, outside the Airport Land Use
Plan Area.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1 X
for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Evaluation
a-b) The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth into
the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is bordered by urban
development and the redevelopment of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of development is
encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation and parks.The
properties proposed for rezoning from Medium High Density(R-3) to High Density Residential (R-4) are already developed
and the rezone would not substantially increase density. As an example,the proposed rezone would allow 29 persons per acre
under R-4 zoning for the fraternity group housing use, whereas under the current R-3 zoning there are 22 persons allowed per
acre. The largest parcel involved in the current proposal is at 137& 175 Crandall Avenue.This parcel is 1.4 acres in size and
is developed with (11) one bedroom units, (8) two bedroom units, and one (3) bedroom unit. The current development adds
up to 16.76 density units, and the current R-3 zoning would allow up to 25.2 density units. The proposed R-4 zoning would
allow up to 33.6 density units. The proposed rezone to High Density Residential (R-4) would allow 8.4 additional density
units on the 1.4 acre site.
The project site is presently constructed with structures used by a fraternity,sorority, and multi-family housing.The proposed
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Cess ,n J
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 109-05 Mitigation
Incorporated
rezone will minimally add to the numbers of dwelling units and/or residents (for group housing uses); therefore, substantial
numbers of housing or people will not be displaced by the project and substantial population growth would not occur as a
result of the proposed project.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 7 X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
f) Other public facilities? X
Evaluation
a) b) d) e) f) No potential impacts have been identified to any public services because of the scale of the project and its
location within a developed portion of the City. Future development must comply with all applicable City Codes and State
regulations.
c) The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction
and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting
any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that
the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees,
charged at the time of building permit issuance for each residence.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that substantiall physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, given the project
only increases the number of residents allowed on the site by 7 persons(where a project is currently proposed),no significant
recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of the site. The project site is located in close proximity to
California Polytechnic State University, so it is anticipated those recreational facilities would be used. As discussed above
under Section 12. Population and Housing, the other properties not currently proposed for redevelopment also will not
substantially increase the number of persons allowed per acre(group housing)or the total number of dwelling units allowed.
b)The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
y-l4?
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia y Potentially Less rj
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 109-05
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 3, 13, X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?23
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,
or a chane in air trafficpatterns?
Evaluation
a) b) Foothill Blvd provides access to the project site. The City's General Plan Circulation Element classifies Foothill Blvd.
as a Local Street in the area east of California Blvd. The Element states that Local Streets should have two travel lanes, a
maximum Average Daily Traffic(ADT)of 1,500 vehicles,and a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour. The proposed project
will not result in changes to these criteria. The Public Works Department has reviewed the project and determined that the
existing road system has sufficient unused capacity to accommodate the added vehicular traffic.
c) The project has been designed to meet City Engineering Standards for driveway access to the site and the applicant has
provided an exhibit required by the Public Works Department demonstrating there is adequate site distance for vehicles
leaving the site.
d)The Fire Marshal has reviewed the project and determined that the site can be adequately accessed by emergency vehicles
in its present design.
e) The project provides vehicle access from Foothill Boulevard and proposes a total of 24 vehicle parking spaces, consistent
with Zoning Regulation standards.
f) The project does not conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation. Alternatively, due to the site's location
near the City's urban center, it is within reasonable walking distance (V4 mile) to shopping,parks and services, and is located
within 300 yards of Cal Poly,which the residents of the proposed fraternity attend.
g)The project is not within the County's Airport Land Use Plan area for San Luis Obispo Airport.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 7,20 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X
treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control, or storm
drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
y-44 9
Aftachmen
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 109 05
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
a), b) The project will allow for development of the site with slightly higher water demands. However, the incremental
change is not considered to be significant. This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer and no
resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. Future site development is subject to water impact fees which were
adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply, treatment and
distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it.
c) The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development and land use
changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section 17.89.030 of the regulations states
that a water allocation shall be required to: 'obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure or facility not
previously connected; change the use of land or buildings, whether or not a construction permit is also required; obtain a
construction permit." Compliance with the City standards and State requirements will assure that impacts to water supplies
are less than significant.
d) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project site.
The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-
site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Impact fees
are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are
set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project.
e) f) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air
quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and
county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50%(from 1989 levels)by 2000. To help reduce the waste
stream generated by this project, consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element,recycling facilities must
be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be
submitted with the building permit application. The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to
reduce the waste stream generated by the project,consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehisto
Impacts are less than significant since the project site is already developed, is in an urbanized area and is not a historic
resource.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUST 2008
y-76
F rZ
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia ly Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 109-05
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
The impacts identified in this initial study arespecific to this project and would not be categorized as cumulatively significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
With the incorporation of Air quality Mitigation Measure #1, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on
humans.
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,April 2006
2. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element April 2006
3. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,April 2006
4. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996
5. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000
6. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,Aril 2006
7. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
8. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database
9. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County
10. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dITp/FMMP/
11. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001
12. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003
13. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition,on file in the Community Development
Department
14. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996
15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
16. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development
Department
17. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community
Development Department
18. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
11- 7/
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 109-05
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
19. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
20. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department
21. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990
22. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C dated July 7 1981
23. San Luis Obispo County ort Land Use Plan
24. 2001 Uniform Building Code
Attachments:
1. Vicinity map
2. Reduced scale project plans
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Mitigation Measures:Air Quality
1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, vehicle
emissions from heavy duty equipment and naturally occurring asbestos has the potential to create dust and emissions
that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are
incorporated:
a) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less;
b) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent
visible emissions from crossing the property line;
c) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from
crossing the property line;
d) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered
when material is not being added to or removed from the pile;
e) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and
f) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a NEPA filter
equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours.
Monitoring Program: Construction phase air quality mitigation measures are monitored by the Air Pollution
Control District (APCD), through a complaint based enforcement system. The requirements listed above are
noted on the project plans and the City Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector for the project are
instructed to contact APCD in the event of a probable violation. Members of the public can also call APCD if
they are concerned about dust or other emissions from a construction site.
i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
Attachment 7
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX (2008 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1290,
1292 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND 1239 135, 1379 175 CRANDALL
AVENUE FROM MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-4); GP/R 109-05
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 13,
2008, and recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 15,
2008, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/U/ER 109-05, Kevin Hauber,
applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing.
BE IT ORDAINED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed Rezoning is consistent with General Plan Land Use and Housing Element
policies to locate student housing projects, fraternities and sororities, and generally more
affordable housing in close proximity to the campus.
2. The Rezoning from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to High-Density Residential
R-4) will allow for density required for the proposed fraternity use, and will provide for
more viable future redevelopment of other properties to be consistent with the above
General Plan Policies and Land Use Element policy stating that housing likely to attract
faculty or students should be encouraged to locate close to Cal Poly, to reduce commute
travel.
3. The proposed Rezoning will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of those
living and working in the vicinity since it will not allow incompatible land uses. The area
of the proposed rezoning request is already adjacent to other High-Density Zoned
properties and is bordered by the Cal Poly campus to the north.
y- 73
Attachment 7
SECTION 2. Action. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (GP/R 109-05) is
hereby approved as identified within Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the day of 2008, AND FINALLY
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of
2008, on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ci omey Jonathan Lowell
G:Uambda Chi Frat(1292 Foothitl)ARC,GP,R,U,FH\CC Ord 109-05(R).doc
I-
1
r
sem.hri i i
r
7
Attachment 8
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2008 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FRATERNITY,
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (R-3)TO HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
R4) FOR PROPERTY AT 12909 1292 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
AND 1239 1359 1379 175 CRANDALL AVENUE; GP/U/ER 109-05
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 13,
2008, and recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 15,
2008, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/U/ER 109-05, Kevin Hauber,
applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project entitlements in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the independent
judgment of the Council. The Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration
incorporating all of the mitigation measures listed below:
Mitigation Measures
1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and
construction activities and vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment have the
potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and
intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated:
a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles
per hour or less;
b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be
disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line;
1 Attachment 8
Resolution No. XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 2
c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible
emissions from crossing the property line;
d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust
suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the
pile;
e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved
public road; and
f. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or
a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24) hours.
Monitoring Program: Construction phase air quality mitigation measures are
monitored by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), through a complaint based
enforcement system. The requirements listed above are noted on the project plans and
the City Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector for the project are instructed to
contact APCD in the event of a probable violation. Members of the public can also
call APCD if they are concerned about dust or other emissions from a construction
site.
SECTION 2. General Plan Amendment Approval & Findings. The General Plan
Amendment included as part of City Application No. GPA 109-05, which amends the Land Use
Element Map from Medium-High Density Residential to High Density Residential for the
properties located at 1290 and 1292 Foothill Boulevard and 123, 135, and 175 Crandall Avenue as
shown on the attached Exhibit A. is hereby approved, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with General Plan Land Use and
Housing Element policies to locate student housing projects, fraternities and sororities,
and generally more affordable housing in close proximity to the campus.
2. The General Plan Amendment from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to High-
Density Residential (R-4) will allow for density required for the proposed fraternity use,
and will provide for more viable future redevelopment of other properties to be consistent
with the above General Plan Policies and Land Use Element policy stating that housing
likely to attract faculty or students should be encouraged to locate close to Cal Poly, to
reduce commute travel.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of those living and working in the vicinity since it will not allow incompatible
land uses. The area of the proposed GP/R and project site is already adjacent to other
High-Density Zoned properties and is bordered by the Cal Poly campus to the north.
SECTION 3. General Plan Amendment Adoption.
1. The Land Use Element Map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A.
Attachment 8
Resolution No. XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 3
2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in
documents, which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing and
use.
SECTION 4. Use Permit Approval Findings and Conditions. The Use Permit
Amendment included as part of City Application No. U 109-05, which allows redevelopment of
the properties located at 1292 Foothill Boulevard and 123 Crandall Avenue, is hereby approved,
based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare
of persons living or working in the area, because limits on hours for events and numbers
of persons allowed on site will restrict activities and limit disturbances to neighbors.
2. The subject use is appropriate at the proposed location, and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses provided that the fraternity complies with all conditions at all
times.
3. The proposed use conforms to the General Plan because it is a group housing use, which
the General Plan designates as potentially appropriate for High-Density (R-4) Residential
areas.
4. The proposed use meets Zoning Ordinance requirements because it is a fraternity in a
Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) zone and proposed to be rezoned to High-
Density Residential (R-4), where fraternities are allowed with approval of a Planning
Commission use permit.
Conditions
1. The use permit shall not be effective until after the associated site development has been
completed consistent with the related Architectural Review Commission application ARC
109- 05, and given final occupancy.
2. Project plans submitted for Building Division review shall reflect handicap accessibility
for the bathroom near the dining room and one of the residential bedroom units.
3. No more than twenty nine(29) persons shall reside at the house at any time. Additions to
structures or additional occupancy shall require a use permit amendment. The applicant
shall allow the city to verify occupancy of the house by allowing an inspection of the
records or by a visual inspection of the premises. Any inspection shall be at a reasonable
time and shall be preceded by a 24-hour notice to the residents.
Attachment 8
Resolution No.XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 4
4. On site parking consistent with ARC approved plans shall be provided and maintained at
all times for the intended use.
5. The property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. All plant materials shall
be maintained and replaced as necessary.
6. The maximum number of persons allowed on the site for routine meetings and gatherings
is 44, except as specifically approved by the Community Development Director for
special events. For such special events, the applicant shall also submit a parking and
transportation plan.
7. No meetings, parties, or other types of similar activities that would violate City Noise
Ordinances or other City regulations, or that would exceed the maximum 44 persons
provisions noted in the above condition may take place between the hours of 10 p.m. and
9 a.m., except as approved by the Community Development Director.
8. The applicant shall institute and maintain a neighborhood relations program. The
neighborhood relations program shall be submitted and found complete to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. This plan
shall include at least the following elements:
Annual training of all members in community relations.
A program to inform neighbors of upcoming events at the house.
Submission of names and telephone numbers of responsible persons, including the
alumni president and chief financial officer, to the Community Development Department
and to the neighbors within two blocks of the house. Responsible persons shall be
available during all events and at reasonable hours otherwise, to receive and handle
complaints.
9. Evidence of implementation of said plan shall be submitted to the director for review
each year. Failure to exercise reasonable efforts to implement said plan may be grounds
for revocation of this permit.
10. Events, including meetings or parties, on site, shall be limited to those listed on a meeting
and activities schedule, submitted to and approved by the Community Development
Director in the fall of each year. Exceptions to this schedule must be approved by the
Community Development Director. If the Director determines the change is significant
and may have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, then it will be referred to the
Planning Commission for consideration.
11. Only signs permitted by the City and consistent with Sign Regulations may be displayed
on the premises unless approved by the Community Development Director for temporary
events.
7 - Z
Attachment 8
Resolution No.XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 5
12. The use permit shall be reviewed if any reasonable written citizen or Police or Fire
Department complaints are received by the City. In review of the use permit, the
Planning Commission may add, delete or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the
use permit. The Planning Commission may consider adding a condition requiring
fraternity officers to perform a community service project in the neighborhood.
13. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions or code requirements, or the conduct
of the use so as to constitute a violation of Federal, State, or local law, or so as to
constitute a public nuisance or so as to cause adverse impacts on the health, safety, or
welfare of persons in the vicinity of this use is prohibited and may constitute grounds for
revocation of this permit.
On motion of seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 2008.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Oomey JonathanLowell
GA GACD-PIAN\BLcvcihl\Lunda Chi Ftat(1292 Foothill),ARC,GP,RZ,ER,U,FH\CC Reno 109-05(GP.ER,U).doc