Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBatch 5 of 51 From:kathie walker < Sent:Friday, June 13, 2025 8:09 PM To:Mezzapesa, John; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Stewjenkins Info Cc:Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Salem, Rami Subject:Re: 1292 Foothill, Current list of CUP addresses, CUPs for AEPi & LCA Based on the record, City's File Number U/GP-R/ ER 109-05 applies to 1290 - 1292 Foothill Blvd. and 123, 125, 137 & 175 Crandall Way only for the rezoning of the property from R-3 to R-4. It does not include a Conditional Use Permit for a Fraternity. The properties at 1290 Foothill and all addresses listed on Crandall Way do not have CUPs for a Sorority or a Fraternity. The CUP for a Fraternity was approved for the property at 1292 Foothill and 123 Crandall, contingent on the demolition of the existing homes and redevelopment of the property. That demolition and redevelopment never happened. The City notified the applicant that the Planning Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started. The construction never started. The same house has occupied the property at 1292 Foothill for decades. Does this mean that the previous CUP #U-194-97, approved in 2008, applies to 1292 Foothill? I appreciate your help and getting all the records straight. -Kathie Walker City's Resolution to rezone all properties listed from R-3 to R-4: City's Resolution re: Environmental Impact of demolition/development of 3-story complex and CUP for Fraternity at 1292 Foothill and 123 Crandall Way: Letter from the City stating that approval expires in three years if construction has not started.: 2 On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 6:42 PM kathie walker < wrote: 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 3 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. 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. 4 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 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. 5 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 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 6 1 From:Mezzapesa, John Sent:Tuesday, June 17, 2025 11:04 AM To:kathie walker Cc:Salem, Rami; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:RE: 1292 Foothill, Current list of CUP addresses, CUPs for AEPi & LCA Hi Kathie, You are correct. Use permit 109-05 would never have been considered effective based on Condition #1. After some research, we have determined that the previously issued permits for 1290 Foothill (U0486-A) and 1292 Foothill (U 174-97) would have still been effective after the abandonment of the proposed development. Further investigation found that 1292 Foothill has not been formally used by a fraternity, nor does CalPoly have record of a recognized fraternity at the location since 2022. The use permit U 174-97 for 1292 Foothill is considered void for lack of use per SLOMC 17.110.090. I have created a request to investigate the reported event that took place on 6/7. We will need to determine that a fraternity sponsored event took place to move forward with a violation of an unpermitted fraternity. A preliminary search on the main social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook, etc.) do not seem to show an advertised event. Is there another social media platform you are seeing post on that we might be able to look into? Below is the current list of active CUPs. In addition to this list, 844 Upham is a known fraternity and, due to a previous determination in 2016 from the City’s Attorney’s Office, has been allowed to continue as such. The location has an old use permit from 1957 that predates the current zoning regulations relating to fraternities. I also removed 1716 Osos from the list because I believe is it void for lack of use as well. I have an email in to CalPoly to verify this. Permitted Fraternity Locations Use Permit # Address USE-0331-2023 1264 Foothill 1241 Monte Vista 1243 Monte Vista 1249 Monte Vista 1251 Monte Vista U0486-A 1290 Foothill U 799-79 1326 Higuera USE-0803-2019 1328 Foothill U 47-10 1335 Foothill U 1292-87 1464 Foothill U 1440-89 180 California USE-3369-2016 190 Stenner U 314-71 244 California U 1099 280 California U 1048 615 Grand U 41-09 700 Grand U 36-09 720 Foothill John Mezzapesa Interim Deputy Building Official 2 Community Development Building and Safety 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668 E jmezzapesa@slocity.org T 805.781.7179 From: kathie walker < Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 8:09 PM To: Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Stewjenkins Info < Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < ; Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 1292 Foothill, Current list of CUP addresses, CUPs for AEPi & LCA Based on the record, City's File Number U/GP-R/ ER 109-05 applies to 1290 - 1292 Foothill Blvd. and 123, 125, 137 & 175 Crandall Way only for the rezoning of the property from R-3 to R-4. It does not include a Conditional Use Permit for a Fraternity. The properties at 1290 Foothill and all addresses listed on Crandall Way do not have CUPs for a Sorority or a Fraternity. The CUP for a Fraternity was approved for the property at 1292 Foothill and 123 Crandall, contingent on the demolition of the existing homes and redevelopment of the property. That demolition and redevelopment never happened. The City notified the applicant that the Planning Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started. The construction never started. The same house has occupied the property at 1292 Foothill for decades. Does this mean that the previous CUP #U-194-97, approved in 2008, applies to 1292 Foothill? I appreciate your help and getting all the records straight. -Kathie Walker City's Resolution to rezone all properties listed from R-3 to R-4: 3 City's Resolution re: Environmental Impact of demolition/development of 3-story complex and CUP for Fraternity at 1292 Foothill and 123 Crandall Way: Letter from the City stating that approval expires in three years if construction has not started.: On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 6:42 PM kathie walker < wrote: 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 4 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. 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. 5 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 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). 6 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 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 7 8 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Wednesday, June 18, 2025 4:05 PM To:Mezzapesa, John Cc:Salem, Rami; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:Re: 1292 Foothill, Current list of CUP addresses, CUPs for AEPi & LCA Thank you, John. I appreciate all of your research! The social media posts were on YikYak on Saturday, 6/7/2025, and did not list a specific address. Fraternities are required to register parties with Cal Poly beforehand, so the Greek Life office would have a record of the party on 6/7/2025 at 1292 Foothill. That's one of Sigma Nu's houses, which the fraternity members call "Lady Main," and there's a big sign attached to the house, above the entryway, that says "Lady Main." Several posts on YikYak said there was a conjoined dayge with SNU (Sigma Nu) and DChi (Delta Chi) on 6/7/2025. Screenshots of a couple of the posts are below: 2 I thought the posts were probably a joke because of the revocation of permits for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu. But it was very loud in our neighborhood on Saturday, June 7. I didn't call SLOPD for any parties that day. Someone called in the dayge at 1292 Foothill, and that's one of Sigma Nu's houses. I later saw that 1292 Foothill received a citation with 200 people listed, so it made sense that it was the dayge advertised on YikYak. Thank you for following up with the CUP information. I will update my records. -Kathie On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 11:04 AM Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, You are correct. Use permit 109-05 would never have been considered effective based on Condition #1. After some research, we have determined that the previously issued permits for 1290 Foothill (U0486-A) and 1292 Foothill (U 174-97) would have still been effective after the abandonment of the proposed development. Further investigation found that 1292 Foothill has not been formally used by a fraternity, nor does CalPoly have record of a recognized fraternity at the location since 2022. The use permit U 174-97 for 1292 Foothill is considered void for lack of use per SLOMC 17.110.090. I have created a request to investigate the reported event that took place on 6/7. We will need to determine that a fraternity sponsored event took place to move forward with a violation of an unpermitted fraternity. A preliminary search on the main social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook, etc.) do not seem to show an advertised event. Is there another social media platform you are seeing post on that we might be able to look into? Below is the current list of active CUPs. In addition to this list, 844 Upham is a known fraternity and, due to a previous determination in 2016 from the City’s Attorney’s Office, has been allowed to continue as such. The location has an old use permit from 1957 that predates the current zoning regulations relating to fraternities. I also removed 1716 Osos from the list because I believe is it void for lack of use as well. I have an email in to CalPoly to verify this. Permitted Fraternity Locations Use Permit # Address USE-0331-2023 1264 Foothill 1241 Monte Vista 1243 Monte Vista 1249 Monte Vista 1251 Monte Vista U0486-A 1290 Foothill U 799-79 1326 Higuera USE-0803-2019 1328 Foothill U 47-10 1335 Foothill 3 U 1292-87 1464 Foothill U 1440-89 180 California USE-3369-2016 190 Stenner U 314-71 244 California U 1099 280 California U 1048 615 Grand U 41-09 700 Grand U 36-09 720 Foothill 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: Friday, June 13, 2025 8:09 PM To: Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Stewjenkins Info < Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < ; Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 1292 Foothill, Current list of CUP addresses, CUPs for AEPi & LCA Based on the record, City's File Number U/GP-R/ ER 109-05 applies to 1290 - 1292 Foothill Blvd. and 123, 125, 137 & 175 Crandall Way only for the rezoning of the property from R-3 to R-4. It does not include a Conditional Use Permit for a Fraternity. The properties at 1290 Foothill and all addresses listed on Crandall Way do not have CUPs for a Sorority or a Fraternity. 4 The CUP for a Fraternity was approved for the property at 1292 Foothill and 123 Crandall, contingent on the demolition of the existing homes and redevelopment of the property. That demolition and redevelopment never happened. The City notified the applicant that the Planning Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started. The construction never started. The same house has occupied the property at 1292 Foothill for decades. Does this mean that the previous CUP #U-194-97, approved in 2008, applies to 1292 Foothill? I appreciate your help and getting all the records straight. -Kathie Walker City's Resolution to rezone all properties listed from R-3 to R-4: City's Resolution re: Environmental Impact of demolition/development of 3-story complex and CUP for Fraternity at 1292 Foothill and 123 Crandall Way: 5 Letter from the City stating that approval expires in three years if construction has not started.: On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 6:42 PM kathie walker < wrote: 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? 6 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. 7 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. 8 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 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). 9 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 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 10 11 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Friday, June 20, 2025 2:12 PM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Planning Commission, 6/25/2025 Item 4a 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, June 20, 2025 1:30 PM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: Planning Commission, 6/25/2025 Item 4a Dear Chair Houghton and Planning Commissioners, Thank you for your time and dedication to addressing the complex issues surrounding Cal Poly’s fraternities. I appreciate your patience with the length of this correspondence. Some historical context is necessary to fully understand the scope of the situation. I remain hopeful that, through accountability and collaboration among Cal Poly, the City, Greek Life, and impacted neighborhoods, meaningful solutions can be achieved. How We Got Here: Community Development Department's Efforts There hasn't been oversight or regulation of Cal Poly's fraternities from the City for at least two decades. Community Development Director, Timmi Tway, and Code Enforcement Supervisor, John Mezzapesa, recognized the issue and started working on it shortly after Ms. Tway was hired as Community Development Director in late 2023. Code Enforcement sorted through the existing CUPs to identify which fraternities have CUPs and the conditions of each CUP. Code Enforcement proactively reviewed SLOPD's records and flagged the fraternities with flagrant violations of the conditions of their CUPs. Director Tway and John Mezzapesa deserve credit for beginning 2 to tackle the problem that was historically ignored. That proactive approach has brought several fraternities forward for re-review of their CUPs to the Planning Commission. Most fraternity houses, including main chapter houses, are operating illegally in single-family neighborhoods, which helps illustrate the enormity of the problem that must be addressed. On October 1, 2023, the addresses of Cal Poly's operating fraternity houses were confirmed by Cal Poly's annual AB 524 Report, published online. That was the first year that State law mandated annual reports for Greek life at every college and university in California. The report requires each Greek organization to disclose the dates and locations of every event held during the previous academic year. San Luis Obispo Code Enforcement staff utilized the spreadsheets for Cal Poly's 18 fraternities to confirm over 60 illegal fraternity house locations, mostly in single-family ne ighborhoods, and sent notifications to the property owners beginning in March 2024. Some property owners contacted Cal Poly and/or the City about the notifications of illegal fraternity operations at their investment properties. This backlash led to Cal Poly editing the Reports in July 2024. They erased the addresses of every fraternity event and replaced them with "San Luis Obispo". Cal Poly's subsequent AB 524 Report, published on October 1, 2024, did not include the addresses for the fraternity events held in residential neighborhoods and listed "San Luis Obispo" as the locations. Code Enforcement sent a public records request to Cal Poly, asking for the addresses where registered fraternity events were held in San Luis Obispo, but Cal Poly refused to provide the list of addresses to the City. Therefore, it has been nearly impossible to cite the dozens of illegal fraternity operations in the City's neighborhoods that hold hundreds of parties and events during an academic year. In January 2025, the City Attorney indicated the City is working toward a long-term solution. SLOPD Noise Records for 720 E. Foothill Blvd The Community Development Department has recommended a re-review of Delta Upsilon's Conditional Use Permit at 720 E. Foothill Blvd based on the number of violations of the conditions, including noise complaints to SLOPD, citations issued to the property, and events held by the fraternity that exceed the maximum 21 people allowed for any event or gatheirng in the current CUP. SLOPD's history for 720 E. Foothill Blvd for the past three academic years is below: There aren't complaints after the first week of June, or in July and August, when Cal Poly is not in session. Screenshots of each of the recent calls to SLOPD, after January 29, 2025, are included in this email. 3 Notification from Code Enforcement to Delta Upsilon On January 29, 2025, Delta Upsilon was issued a Notice of Violation for the property at 720 E. Foothill Blvd. The Notice included some of the conditions of the fraternity's CUP and the history of violations, and says the use permit would be reviewed by Community Development for possible re-review by the Planning Commission. The Notice states: "Immediate compliance is required. These violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated." After January 29, 720 E. Foothill Blvd had six more noise complaints, and three noise citations were issued to the property. One noise citation was appealed and dismissed because the Hearing Officer determined the noise was not "plainly audible noise 50 feet from the property line". This is the second time this month I have seen the Hearing Officer dismiss a fraternity's noise citation based on a misunderstanding of the City's noise ordinance. The noise ordinance prohibits any "noise disturbance" that is plainly audible "50 feet from the noisemaker", and not the property line. As an example, if someone is causing a noise disturbance in their backyard, and their backyard is 50 feet from another property, and the noise disturbance is plainly audible on another property 50 feet from the noisemaker, then it is a violation of the City's noise ordinance, 24/7. SLOPD has published information on their website here: https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/34766/638336680176730000 Here is the ordinance: After 10 p.m., amplified noise is prohibited from crossing a residential property line. Using Delta Upsilon's property at 720 E. Foothill Blvd as an example, there is a courtyard in the center of the property with a beer dye table, shown in one of their rush videos. A screenshot is below: 4 If people were yelling and making noise in that area, it could potentially cause a noise disturbance for neighboring residents 50 feet from the courtyard. It is not 50 feet from the property line, but it is still a violation of the noise ordinance. An aerial view shows Delta Upsilon's property, below. The white dashed lines are 50 feet long (from the potential noisemaker), the yellow dashed line shows the property line, and the red line shows the boundary 50 feet from the property line. You can see how a neighbor 50 feet away from a courtyard party could hear the noisy party, yet is not 50 feet from the property line. Still, it is a noise violation if it's a "noise disturbance" that can be heard 50 feet from the noisemaker. Otherwise, in the example below, the residents at 732 and 734 Foothill would never be entitled to peace because they are located inside the area that is 50 feet from the fraternity's property line. On 2/6/2025, a complaint was called into SLOPD at 10:05 p.m. for 'loud music and yelling' and was cleared as a negative violation. 5 On 2/7/2025, a complaint was called into SLOPD at 9:10 p.m. for a 'loud party at the location' and a citation was issued. On 2/7/2025, a complaint was called into SLOPD at 10:30 p.m. for a 'loud party' and another citation was issued. The fraternity likely appealed the earlier citation, called in at 9:10 p.m., because the noise ordinance prohibits amplified noise from crossing the property line after 10 p.m., and the Hearing Officer's (incorrect) interpretation of the noise ordinance is that noise before 10 p.m. must be plainly audible 50 feet from the property line. On 2/27/2025, a complaint was called into SLOPD at 10:08 p.m. for a 'loud party', and a citation was issued that lists 65 people at the event. The fraternity knew that the CUP limited occupancy to 21 people for meetings and gatherings, because that information was included in the Notice of Violation that was sent a month earlier, on January 29. They hosted a party with at least 65 people anyway. 6 On 2/28/2025, a complaint was called into SLOPD at 9:20 p.m. for 'loud music' and was cleared as a negative violation. On 3/15/2025, which was "St. Fratty's Day", a complaint was called into SLOPD that morning at 7:16 a.m. for a loud party. SLOPD arrived one hour later, at 8:15 a.m., and cleared the complaint as a negative violation. Delta Upsilon posts videos during rush recruitment, which feature footage from their parties that feature their fraternity house at 720 E. Foothill and various parties: https://vimeo.com/1095113078?share=copy#t=0 The parties shown violate the conditions of the CUP for 720 E. Foothill Blvd, including the current limitation of 21 people for gatherings. Delta Upsilon also has illegal fraternity houses in R1 neighborhoods that operate as full-fledged fraternity houses. There was an increase in events at those locations in the past several months at 281 Albert Drive, 388 Chaplin Lane, and 1868 Loomis Street. I did not realize the CUP for the main chapter house at 720 E. Foothill was being considered for re-review, but now I understand why there was an uptick in parties at Delta Upsilon's illegal fraternity houses. Cal Poly requires events to be registered beforehand with the Greek Life 7 administration; therefore, they have a list of the dates, addresses, and the number of people in attendance for each of Delta Upsilon's events. That list would confirm the increase in events at Delta Upsilon's illegal fraternity houses in the residential neighborhoods, away from 720 E. Foothill, to potentially avoid any more noise complaints at that location. Last month, on May 2, 2025, Delta Upsilon had an enormous party with a live band in the backyard of their illegal fraternity house at 281 Albert Drive. The video posted online says “Delta Upsilon presents The Kilians,” which is a band that played at the Shabang music festival the day after Delta Upsilon's backyard concert. The fraternity installed a tarp from the house to the side fence to hide the view of the backyard party. Delta Upsilon posted a video from the event on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/DJXia7Uh8kO/?img_index=1. If the link was removed, it can also be seen here: https://vimeo.com/1094575248?share=copy#t=0 SLOPD issued a noise citation to a member of Delta Upsilon for the party, and the citation says there were 50 people at the event. As you can see from the video, there were hundreds of people at the party. Officers don't go into the backyard or count people, and the number of people listed on a noise citation is provided by the person receiving the citation. Therefore, the number is often not an accurate reflection of the actual number of people at a noisy party. Delta Upsilon had another large, noisy event at 281 Albert Drive on May 16, 2025, and, again, installed a tarp to obscure the view into the backyard. On May 30, 2025, Delta Upsilon held a large, noisy party at 388 Chaplin Lane, on the corner of Fredericks St. It appeared to be a sorority exchange because many of the females were dressed alike, wearing the same colors. SLOPD issued a noise citation at around 11:00 p.m. with 100 people listed on the citation. The person who received the citation was Erik "Anders" Ruud, the former president of Delta Upsilon and Interfraternity Council President from January to December 2024. I spoke with Mr. Ruud on November 21, 2024, about parties at 281 Albert Dr and 388 Chaplin Ln, after a Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) meeting. I serve as an alternative Representative for Geographical Neighborhoods and attend the monthly meetings. Unfortunately, he was dismissive toward me. He was also extremely rude to another Representative on the SCLC who has persistently brought up the "fraternity problem" during the monthly SCLC meetings, where Cal Poly has continued to ignore the issue. The general attitude from 8 the fraternities seems to be that they are entitled to have noisy parties, despite any rules or regulations that restrict them. Cal Poly representatives make excuses or distance themselves from the problems faced by nearby neighborhoods. After Sigma Nu's and Delta Chi's CUPs were recently revoked (for fewer violations than Delta Upsilon), Cal Poly released the following statement to KSBY news: "Since an organization's permit is between them and the City, the University doesn't have any information to provide on that topic." While Cal Poly stays silent on the matter, it continues to recruit more fraternities to its campus without any provisions for their fraternity housing accommodations or concern about the adverse impact of its fraternities' parties and events on the San Luis Obispo community. CUP Limitations The current CUP for 720 E. Foothill Blvd allows 14 people to live on the premises and a maximum of 21 people on site for meetings and gatherings. The revised CUP allows 22 people for meetings and gatherings. This occupancy limitation for gatherings is fair and necessary, but has proven to be problematic for every fraternity CUP on file with the City because it is nearly impossible for a fraternity to hold an event and stay within these reasonable limitations. Most Cal Poly fraternities have over 150 members, and parties also include a large percentage of invited female guests. Fraternity parties are loud with amplified music that consistently violates the City's noise ordinance. The increased traffic and yelling while coming and going from fraternity parties add to the adversity of use. The most practical and viable solution to this ever-growing problem is for fraternities to be located on Cal Poly's campus, where they can have large gatherings without impacting residential neighborhoods San Luis Obispo General Plan and Cal Poly's Greek Life The subject of fraternity houses has been included in the City's Housing Element since at least 1994. On 9/20/2024, Fraternities and Sororities were addressed as a "major area of concern" while the Housing Element was adopted, copied below. In 1994, there were a total of 17 sororities and fraternities, and 2,500 students belonged to Greek life. Now, in 2025, there are 28 sororities and fraternities (18 fraternities and 10 sororities) with about 4,500 members, or 20% of Cal Poly's student population. In 1994, the Housing Element, Section 1.28.10, said, "The City will work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus fraternity/sorority living groups..." 9 In 1997, the City's General Plan indicated there was a "Student housing study underway" concerning on- campus fraternities, which would be implemented "as resources are available." It appears those resources were never available. The City's General Plan, Housing Element, adopted on March 30, 2004, said: 8.2.6: "Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University campus . Until that is possible, they should be located in Medium-High and High-Density residential zones near the campus." The wording has not changed, and the current Housing Element adopted in 2020 says the same thing: 8.5: "Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University campus . Until that is possible, they should be located in Medium-High and High-Density residential zones near the campus." Again, no effort has been made to locate fraternities on Cal Poly's campus. It will never be "possible" because no effort is being made toward making it happen. Meanwhile, the residential neighborhoods are negatively affected every weekend by fraternity events, and residents are unable to sleep or have peace on their properties. Cal Poly continues to recruit more fraternities to its campus without any requirement that they have a legal fraternity location. There are currently 18 fraternities at Cal Poly. In the Fall of 2025, there will be 19 fraternities, and in the Fall of 2026, there will be 20 fraternities. Each has rush events, sorority exchanges, and other parties and events throughout the academic year in the City's neighborhoods. 10 The most recent General Plan, Land Use Element, adopted in 2014, says: 2.6.5: "The City shall work with Cal Poly to develop a proposal to locate fraternities on campus for consideration by the CSU Board . If locations on campus cannot be provided, fraternities and sororities should be limited to medium-high and high-density residential areas near campus." The City has made no effort to work with Cal Poly to develop a proposal to locate fraternities on campus for consideration by the CSU Board. I'm not sure if the City has the power to compel Cal Poly to build a Greek Row, but it does have the power to enforce fraternities' CUPs and place pressure on Cal Poly to stop ignoring the problem and take some responsibility for its fraternities. The university expects the City and its residents to absorb the negative impact of fraternity events in the City's residential neighborhoods, while it absolves itself of any accountability. Affected residents include college students who also need a quiet environment to study or sleep. Code Enforcement Presentation to Cal Poly's InterFraternity Council (IFC) The City informed Cal Poly's Greek Life staff and administration that it was illegal to hold fraternity-related events in R1 and R2 neighborhoods in late 2023. After Cal Poly published the AB 524 Report on the Greek Life webpage, Community Development and Code Enforcement notified Cal Poly about the City's laws and regulations for fraternities and sororities, and indicated that many fraternities were illegally holding events in R1 and R2 neighborhoods. On Saturday, January 11, 2025, before rush week, Code Enforcement staff, including Supervisor John Mezzapesa, gave a presentation at Cal Poly to Greek Life administration and staff, and the IFC, including fraternity members and potential new members. City staff explained that it is illegal for fraternities and sororities to hold events, including rush recruitment, in R1 and R2 neighborhoods. Six days later, on January 17, 2025, Delta Upsilon held a rush event at their illegal fraternity house at 388 Chaplin Lane, zoned R1. The fraternity posted a photo from its front deck at 388 Chaplin, looking down Fredericks Street, with the caption "Meet the DUdes from 3-5 today!" Our home is not far from this property, and my husband and I witnessed the rush event at 388 Chaplin on 1/17/2025. 11 Delta Upsilon knew it was not legal for them to hold fraternity events in the neighborhood, but did it anyway. They'd previously held many other rush events at 388 Chaplin Lane and other illegal fraternity houses in the neighborhood, and they have continued to hold parties and other events at those addresses, even though they know it is illegal to do so. Special Event Permits on Private Property and the Noise Ordinance There are no circumstances that would allow Delta Upsilon to hold a party or event at their fraternity house, as shown in their rush recruitment video, which supports the idea that fraternities should be located on Cal Poly's campus, away from residential areas. According to SLOMC 17.86.260, a "special event" permit may only be granted if the event poses zero potential to negatively affect the surrounding community. It is simply unrealistic to suggest that a large fraternity party, by its nature, could meet that standard. Additionally, per SLOMC 17.108.040, the Community Development Director may only approve such a permit if they can make specific findings, including that the event is consistent with, or enhances, the character of the neighborhood. This is an extremely high bar for a fraternity party, and in most cases, impossible to meet. At the October 2024 hearing regarding Lambda Chi Alpha's CUP, Community Development Director Tway emphasized to the City Council that there are no circumstances under which a fraternity may violate the City's 12 noise ordinance. As a reminder, that ordinance is enforcable 24/7 and prohibits any noise disturbance audible from 50 feet away. After 10 p.m. amplified sound is not allowed to cross residential property lines. A standard fraternity event, such as a sorority exchange, a "Big-Little" night, or any other typical party, would not qualify for a special event permit. These events routinely involve amplified music, shouting, chanting, and drinking games that are audible from more than a block away. They also result in intoxicated partygoers walking loudly through the neighborhood, disturbing the peace of residents. As someone who experiences these disruptions regularly, I cannot overstate how difficult it is to live with the constant noise, trespassing, and sleepless nights. These types of events are simply incompatible with a peaceful residential environment. For the well-being of our community, Cal Poly's fraternities must be relocated to a more appropriate setting, specifically on Cal Poly's campus, where they can operate without negatively impacting surrounding neighborhoods. I urge the Planning Commission to revoke Delta Upsilon’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for 720 E. Foothill. The fraternity has consistently failed to comply with the conditions of the permit for several years. This academic year saw a rise in noise complaints to SLOPD, culminating in five citations within six months. Even after learning their CUP would be re-reviewed by the Planning Commission, fraternity members continued to host large, disruptive parties - this time at unpermitted locations - demonstrating ongoing disregard for the law and the surrounding community. These patterns of behavior suggest a lack of accountability and concern for neighborhood impacts. Revoking Delta Upsilon's CUP reinforces the integrity of the CUP process and ensures that all applicants are held to the same standards. Looking ahead, I believe this moment presents an opportunity for a broader, long-overdue conversation involving Cal Poly, the City, Greek Life, and surrounding neighborhoods. Greek organizations can offer meaningful experiences, but their activities must be compatible with the well-being of the larger community. The current model is not working. A sustainable path forward should include Cal Poly designating on-campus land for fraternity housing, where chapters can host events without disrupting residential neighborhoods. Many who are familiar with these ongoing issues see this as the most viable long-term solution. We can and should support the positive aspects of Greek Life while also insisting on compliance, respect, and accountability. This review process and revocation of a CUP when conditions are repeatedly violated is a necessary step in that direction. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Friday, June 20, 2025 1:30 PM To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Planning Commission, 6/25/2025 Item 4a Dear Chair Houghton and Planning Commissioners, Thank you for your time and dedication to addressing the complex issues surrounding Cal Poly’s fraternities. I appreciate your patience with the length of this correspondence. Some historical context is necessary to fully understand the scope of the situation. I remain hopeful that, through accountability and collaboration among Cal Poly, the City, Greek Life, and impacted neighborhoods, meaningful solutions can be achieved. How We Got Here: Community Development Department's Efforts There hasn't been oversight or regulation of Cal Poly's fraternities from the City for at least two decades. Community Development Director, Timmi Tway, and Code Enforcement Supervisor, John Mezzapesa, recognized the issue and started working on it shortly after Ms. Tway was hired as Community Development Director in late 2023. Code Enforcement sorted through the existing CUPs to identify which fraternities have CUPs and the conditions of each CUP. Code Enforcement proactively reviewed SLOPD's records and flagged the fraternities with flagrant violations of the conditions of their CUPs. Director Tway and John Mezzapesa deserve credit for beginning to tackle the problem that was historically ignored. That proactive approach has brought several fraternities forward for re-review of their CUPs to the Planning Commission. Most fraternity houses, including main chapter houses, are operating illegally in single-family neighborhoods, which helps illustrate the enormity of the problem that must be addressed. On October 1, 2023, the addresses of Cal Poly's operating fraternity houses were confirmed by Cal Poly's annual AB 524 Report, published online. That was the first year that State law mandated annual reports for Greek life at every college and university in California. The report requires each Greek organization to disclose the dates and locations of every event held during the previous academic year. San Luis Obispo Code Enforcement staff utilized the spreadsheets for Cal Poly's 18 fraternities to confirm over 60 illegal fraternity house locations, mostly in single-family ne ighborhoods, and sent notifications to the property owners beginning in March 2024. Some property owners contacted Cal Poly and/or the City about the notifications of illegal fraternity operations at their investment properties. This backlash led to Cal Poly editing the Reports in July 2024. They erased the addresses of every fraternity event and replaced them with "San Luis Obispo". Cal Poly's subsequent AB 524 Report, published on October 1, 2024, did not include the addresses for the fraternity events held in residential neighborhoods and listed "San Luis Obispo" as the locations. Code Enforcement sent a public records request to Cal Poly, asking for the addresses where registered fraternity events were held in San Luis Obispo, but Cal Poly refused to provide the list of addresses to the City. Therefore, it has been nearly impossible to cite the dozens of illegal fraternity operations in the City's neighborhoods that hold hundreds of parties and events during an academic year. In January 2025, the City Attorney indicated the City is working toward a long-term solution. SLOPD Noise Records for 720 E. Foothill Blvd 2 The Community Development Department has recommended a re-review of Delta Upsilon's Conditional Use Permit at 720 E. Foothill Blvd based on the number of violations of the conditions, including noise complaints to SLOPD, citations issued to the property, and events held by the fraternity that exceed the maximum 21 people allowed for any event or gatheirng in the current CUP. SLOPD's history for 720 E. Foothill Blvd for the past three academic years is below: There aren't complaints after the first week of June, or in July and August, when Cal Poly is not in session. Screenshots of each of the recent calls to SLOPD, after January 29, 2025, are included in this email. Notification from Code Enforcement to Delta Upsilon On January 29, 2025, Delta Upsilon was issued a Notice of Violation for the property at 720 E. Foothill Blvd. The Notice included some of the conditions of the fraternity's CUP and the history of violations, and says the use permit would be reviewed by Community Development for possible re-review by the Planning Commission. The Notice states: "Immediate compliance is required. These violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated." After January 29, 720 E. Foothill Blvd had six more noise complaints, and three noise citations were issued to the property. One noise citation was appealed and dismissed because the Hearing Officer determined the noise was not "plainly audible noise 50 feet from the property line". This is the second time this month I have seen the Hearing Officer dismiss a fraternity's noise citation based on a misunderstanding of the City's noise ordinance. The noise ordinance prohibits any "noise disturbance" that is plainly audible "50 feet from the noisemaker", and not the property line. As an example, if someone is causing a noise disturbance in their backyard, and their backyard is 50 feet from another property, and the noise disturbance is plainly audible on another property 50 feet from the noisemaker, then it is a violation of the City's noise ordinance, 24/7. SLOPD has published information on their website here: https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/34766/638336680176730000 Here is the ordinance: 3 After 10 p.m., amplified noise is prohibited from crossing a residential property line. Using Delta Upsilon's property at 720 E. Foothill Blvd as an example, there is a courtyard in the center of the property with a beer dye table, shown in one of their rush videos. A screenshot is below: If people were yelling and making noise in that area, it could potentially cause a noise disturbance for neighboring residents 50 feet from the courtyard. It is not 50 feet from the property line, but it is still a violation of the noise ordinance. An aerial view shows Delta Upsilon's property, below. The white dashed lines are 50 feet long (from the potential noisemaker), the yellow dashed line shows the property line, and the red line shows the boundary 50 feet from the property line. You can see how a neighbor 50 feet away from a courtyard party could hear the noisy party, yet is not 50 feet from the property line. Still, it is a noise violation if it's a "noise disturbance" that can be heard 50 feet from the noisemaker. Otherwise, in the example below, the residents at 732 and 734 Foothill would never be entitled to peace because they are located inside the area that is 50 feet from the fraternity's property line. 4 On 2/6/2025, a complaint was called into SLOPD at 10:05 p.m. for 'loud music and yelling' and was cleared as a negative violation. On 2/7/2025, a complaint was called into SLOPD at 9:10 p.m. for a 'loud party at the location' and a citation was issued. On 2/7/2025, a complaint was called into SLOPD at 10:30 p.m. for a 'loud party' and another citation was issued. 5 The fraternity likely appealed the earlier citation, called in at 9:10 p.m., because the noise ordinance prohibits amplified noise from crossing the property line after 10 p.m., and the Hearing Officer's (incorrect) interpretation of the noise ordinance is that noise before 10 p.m. must be plainly audible 50 feet from the property line. On 2/27/2025, a complaint was called into SLOPD at 10:08 p.m. for a 'loud party', and a citation was issued that lists 65 people at the event. The fraternity knew that the CUP limited occupancy to 21 people for meetings and gatherings, because that information was included in the Notice of Violation that was sent a month earlier, on January 29. They hosted a party with at least 65 people anyway. On 2/28/2025, a complaint was called into SLOPD at 9:20 p.m. for 'loud music' and was cleared as a negative violation. On 3/15/2025, which was "St. Fratty's Day", a complaint was called into SLOPD that morning at 7:16 a.m. for a loud party. SLOPD arrived one hour later, at 8:15 a.m., and cleared the complaint as a negative violation. 6 Delta Upsilon posts videos during rush recruitment, which feature footage from their parties that feature their fraternity house at 720 E. Foothill and various parties: https://vimeo.com/1095113078?share=copy#t=0 The parties shown violate the conditions of the CUP for 720 E. Foothill Blvd, including the current limitation of 21 people for gatherings. Delta Upsilon also has illegal fraternity houses in R1 neighborhoods that operate as full-fledged fraternity houses. There was an increase in events at those locations in the past several months at 281 Albert Drive, 388 Chaplin Lane, and 1868 Loomis Street. I did not realize the CUP for the main chapter house at 720 E. Foothill was being considered for re-review, but now I understand why there was an uptick in parties at Delta Upsilon's illegal fraternity houses. Cal Poly requires events to be registered beforehand with the Greek Life administration; therefore, they have a list of the dates, addresses, and the number of people in attendance for each of Delta Upsilon's events. That list would confirm the increase in events at Delta Upsilon's illegal fraternity houses in the residential neighborhoods, away from 720 E. Foothill, to potentially avoid any more noise complaints at that location. Last month, on May 2, 2025, Delta Upsilon had an enormous party with a live band in the backyard of their illegal fraternity house at 281 Albert Drive. The video posted online says “Delta Upsilon presents The Kilians,” which is a band that played at the Shabang music festival the day after Delta Upsilon's backyard concert. The fraternity installed a tarp from the house to the side fence to hide the view of the backyard party. Delta Upsilon posted a video from the event on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/DJXia7Uh8kO/?img_index=1. If the link was removed, it can also be seen here: https://vimeo.com/1094575248?share=copy#t=0 7 SLOPD issued a noise citation to a member of Delta Upsilon for the party, and the citation says there were 50 people at the event. As you can see from the video, there were hundreds of people at the party. Officers don't go into the backyard or count people, and the number of people listed on a noise citation is provided by the person receiving the citation. Therefore, the number is often not an accurate reflection of the actual number of people at a noisy party. Delta Upsilon had another large, noisy event at 281 Albert Drive on May 16, 2025, and, again, installed a tarp to obscure the view into the backyard. On May 30, 2025, Delta Upsilon held a large, noisy party at 388 Chaplin Lane, on the corner of Fredericks St. It appeared to be a sorority exchange because many of the females were dressed alike, wearing the same colors. SLOPD issued a noise citation at around 11:00 p.m. with 100 people listed on the citation. The person who received the citation was Erik "Anders" Ruud, the former president of Delta Upsilon and Interfraternity Council President from January to December 2024. I spoke with Mr. Ruud on November 21, 2024, about parties at 281 Albert Dr and 388 Chaplin Ln, after a Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) meeting. I serve as an alternative Representative for Geographical Neighborhoods and attend the monthly meetings. Unfortunately, he was dismissive toward me. He was also extremely rude to another Representative on the SCLC who has persistently brought up the "fraternity problem" during the monthly SCLC meetings, where Cal Poly has continued to ignore the issue. The general attitude from the fraternities seems to be that they are entitled to have noisy parties, despite any rules or regulations that restrict them. Cal Poly representatives make excuses or distance themselves from the problems faced by nearby neighborhoods. After Sigma Nu's and Delta Chi's CUPs were recently revoked (for fewer violations than Delta Upsilon), Cal Poly released the following statement to KSBY news: "Since an organization's permit is between them and the City, the University doesn't have any information to provide on that topic." While Cal Poly stays silent on the matter, it continues to recruit more fraternities to its campus without any provisions for their fraternity housing accommodations or concern about the adverse impact of its fraternities' parties and events on the San Luis Obispo community. CUP Limitations The current CUP for 720 E. Foothill Blvd allows 14 people to live on the premises and a maximum of 21 people on site for meetings and gatherings. The revised CUP allows 22 people for meetings and gatherings. This occupancy limitation for gatherings is fair and necessary, but has proven to be problematic for every fraternity CUP on file with the City because it is nearly impossible for a fraternity to hold an event and stay within these reasonable limitations. Most Cal Poly fraternities have over 150 members, and parties also include a large percentage of invited female guests. Fraternity parties are loud with amplified music that consistently violates the City's noise ordinance. The increased traffic and yelling while coming and going from fraternity parties add to the adversity of use. The most practical and viable solution to this ever-growing problem is for fraternities to be located on Cal Poly's campus, where they can have large gatherings without impacting residential neighborhoods San Luis Obispo General Plan and Cal Poly's Greek Life 8 The subject of fraternity houses has been included in the City's Housing Element since at least 1994. On 9/20/2024, Fraternities and Sororities were addressed as a "major area of concern" while the Housing Element was adopted, copied below. In 1994, there were a total of 17 sororities and fraternities, and 2,500 students belonged to Greek life. Now, in 2025, there are 28 sororities and fraternities (18 fraternities and 10 sororities) with about 4,500 members, or 20% of Cal Poly's student population. In 1994, the Housing Element, Section 1.28.10, said, "The City will work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus fraternity/sorority living groups..." In 1997, the City's General Plan indicated there was a "Student housing study underway" concerning on- campus fraternities, which would be implemented "as resources are available." It appears those resources were never available. The City's General Plan, Housing Element, adopted on March 30, 2004, said: 9 8.2.6: "Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University campus . Until that is possible, they should be located in Medium-High and High-Density residential zones near the campus." The wording has not changed, and the current Housing Element adopted in 2020 says the same thing: 8.5: "Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University campus . Until that is possible, they should be located in Medium-High and High-Density residential zones near the campus." Again, no effort has been made to locate fraternities on Cal Poly's campus. It will never be "possible" because no effort is being made toward making it happen. Meanwhile, the residential neighborhoods are negatively affected every weekend by fraternity events, and residents are unable to sleep or have peace on their properties. Cal Poly continues to recruit more fraternities to its campus without any requirement that they have a legal fraternity location. There are currently 18 fraternities at Cal Poly. In the Fall of 2025, there will be 19 fraternities, and in the Fall of 2026, there will be 20 fraternities. Each has rush events, sorority exchanges, and other parties and events throughout the academic year in the City's neighborhoods. The most recent General Plan, Land Use Element, adopted in 2014, says: 2.6.5: "The City shall work with Cal Poly to develop a proposal to locate fraternities on campus for consideration by the CSU Board . If locations on campus cannot be provided, fraternities and sororities should be limited to medium-high and high-density residential areas near campus." The City has made no effort to work with Cal Poly to develop a proposal to locate fraternities on campus for consideration by the CSU Board. I'm not sure if the City has the power to compel Cal Poly to build a Greek Row, but it does have the power to enforce fraternities' CUPs and place pressure on Cal Poly to stop ignoring the problem and take some responsibility for its fraternities. The university expects the City and its residents to absorb the negative impact of fraternity events in the City's residential neighborhoods, while it absolves itself of any accountability. Affected residents include college students who also need a quiet environment to study or sleep. Code Enforcement Presentation to Cal Poly's InterFraternity Council (IFC) The City informed Cal Poly's Greek Life staff and administration that it was illegal to hold fraternity-related events in R1 and R2 neighborhoods in late 2023. After Cal Poly published the AB 524 Report on the Greek Life webpage, Community Development and Code Enforcement notified Cal Poly about the City's laws and regulations for fraternities and sororities, and indicated that many fraternities were illegally holding events in R1 and R2 neighborhoods. On Saturday, January 11, 2025, before rush week, Code Enforcement staff, including Supervisor John Mezzapesa, gave a presentation at Cal Poly to Greek Life administration and staff, and the IFC, including fraternity members and potential new members. City staff explained that it is illegal for fraternities and sororities to hold events, including rush recruitment, in R1 and R2 neighborhoods. Six days later, on January 17, 2025, Delta Upsilon held a rush event at their illegal fraternity house at 388 Chaplin Lane, zoned R1. The fraternity posted a photo from its front deck at 388 Chaplin, looking down Fredericks Street, with the caption "Meet the DUdes from 3-5 today!" Our home is not far from this property, and my husband and I witnessed the rush event at 388 Chaplin on 1/17/2025. 10 Delta Upsilon knew it was not legal for them to hold fraternity events in the neighborhood, but did it anyway. They'd previously held many other rush events at 388 Chaplin Lane and other illegal fraternity houses in the neighborhood, and they have continued to hold parties and other events at those addresses, even though they know it is illegal to do so. Special Event Permits on Private Property and the Noise Ordinance There are no circumstances that would allow Delta Upsilon to hold a party or event at their fraternity house, as shown in their rush recruitment video, which supports the idea that fraternities should be located on Cal Poly's campus, away from residential areas. According to SLOMC 17.86.260, a "special event" permit may only be granted if the event poses zero potential to negatively affect the surrounding community. It is simply unrealistic to suggest that a large fraternity party, by its nature, could meet that standard. Additionally, per SLOMC 17.108.040, the Community Development Director may only approve such a permit if they can make specific findings, including that the event is consistent with, or enhances, the character of the neighborhood. This is an extremely high bar for a fraternity party, and in most cases, impossible to meet. At the October 2024 hearing regarding Lambda Chi Alpha's CUP, Community Development Director Tway emphasized to the City Council that there are no circumstances under which a fraternity may violate the City's 11 noise ordinance. As a reminder, that ordinance is enforcable 24/7 and prohibits any noise disturbance audible from 50 feet away. After 10 p.m. amplified sound is not allowed to cross residential property lines. A standard fraternity event, such as a sorority exchange, a "Big-Little" night, or any other typical party, would not qualify for a special event permit. These events routinely involve amplified music, shouting, chanting, and drinking games that are audible from more than a block away. They also result in intoxicated partygoers walking loudly through the neighborhood, disturbing the peace of residents. As someone who experiences these disruptions regularly, I cannot overstate how difficult it is to live with the constant noise, trespassing, and sleepless nights. These types of events are simply incompatible with a peaceful residential environment. For the well-being of our community, Cal Poly's fraternities must be relocated to a more appropriate setting, specifically on Cal Poly's campus, where they can operate without negatively impacting surrounding neighborhoods. I urge the Planning Commission to revoke Delta Upsilon’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for 720 E. Foothill. The fraternity has consistently failed to comply with the conditions of the permit for several years. This academic year saw a rise in noise complaints to SLOPD, culminating in five citations within six months. Even after learning their CUP would be re-reviewed by the Planning Commission, fraternity members continued to host large, disruptive parties - this time at unpermitted locations - demonstrating ongoing disregard for the law and the surrounding community. These patterns of behavior suggest a lack of accountability and concern for neighborhood impacts. Revoking Delta Upsilon's CUP reinforces the integrity of the CUP process and ensures that all applicants are held to the same standards. Looking ahead, I believe this moment presents an opportunity for a broader, long-overdue conversation involving Cal Poly, the City, Greek Life, and surrounding neighborhoods. Greek organizations can offer meaningful experiences, but their activities must be compatible with the well-being of the larger community. The current model is not working. A sustainable path forward should include Cal Poly designating on-campus land for fraternity housing, where chapters can host events without disrupting residential neighborhoods. Many who are familiar with these ongoing issues see this as the most viable long-term solution. We can and should support the positive aspects of Greek Life while also insisting on compliance, respect, and accountability. This review process and revocation of a CUP when conditions are repeatedly violated is a necessary step in that direction. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Wednesday, June 25, 2025 11:08 AM To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Another SLOPD complaint at 720 E. Foothill (Item 4a, Planning Commission 6/25/2025) Planning Commissioners, For the record, the SLOPD log showed yet another noise complaint for a "loud party" at 720 Foothill on Saturday, 6/21/2025. The log shows there was a delay of almost one hour before SLOPD dispatched anyone, and they sent a SNAP employee named "I. Dahmen", shown as Unit P1 on the log. SNAP is not supposed to be dispatched to fraternity houses (or addresses with a previous noise citation within 9 months). 720 Foothill is a fraternity and has also had multiple citations within the past 9 months. It should have been coded as "NOISE POLICE" under "Type" in the upper left corner of the SLOPD call log, as shown below. "NOISE POLICE" requires a response from a sworn officer, but somehow the call was mistakenly input as "Noise Party"; the call was delayed, and SNAP was dispatched. The red arrows show the call on Saturday, 6/21 (top) as Type: "Noise Party," which was changed in SLOPD's database from "NOISE POLICE" (bottom), shown on a previous citation, and all previous calls to 720 E. Foothill Blvd. It looks like SNAP called other SLOPD Units 4248 and 4247. In any event, the noise complaint was ultimately cleared as a negative violation. 2 SLOPD could provide more information about the mix-up and delay, what the complaining party reported hearing, and what the officers observed when they got there, an hour after the call was made on 6/21. This is the 11th noise complaint made for 720 E. Foothill since the beginning of the academic year in September for a loud party or other disturbing noise. 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Monday, June 30, 2025 1:28 PM To:E-mail Council Website Cc:Advisory Bodies; McDonald, Whitney Subject:Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report Dear City Councilmembers, Transparency in government is more critical than ever. As a long-time San Luis Obispo resident who has reported illegal fraternity houses and their disruptive impact since Fall 2021, I’m deeply disheartened by your continued inaction. I’ve submitted videos, spoken during public comment, and repeatedly asked that this issue be agendized, which you have rejected. In the past four years, the only change has been that more long-time residents have left our neighborhood. The Grand Jury’s recent report, Round and Round with Town Gown, confirmed what residents have said all along: the City has failed to enforce its laws and protect our neighborhoods. The Grand Jury interviewed 15 people, primarily City staff. They reviewed a ton of documentation (including that provided by the City) and visited the neighborhood so they could assess the problem themselves. The Grand Jury does not have a political agenda, and the investigation was independent of any particular influence. When asked for comment on the Grand Jury report, the City's responses have been evasive and defensive. Mayor Erica Stewart’s claim that the matter can’t be discussed until September -despite available space on upcoming agendas - is unacceptable. The City Council is supposed to represent the residents, not the City itself. I urge you to immediately agendize the Grand Jury report and related issues for public discussion. I also request that the City Council convene a meeting that includes Cal Poly, Greek Life, the City, and Residents in the affected neighborhoods, so there can be meaningful dialogue toward solving the problem. These are some of the key points from my experience:  The Grand Jury cited serious concerns with illegal fraternities, enforcement failures, SLOPD leadership, and lack of transparency. I was interviewed and provided documentation requested, including recordings of the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) meetings for the past year.  Cal Poly cooperated fully with the Grand Jury, while the Police Chief blocked interviews with two senior officers, hampering the investigation. This behavior erodes public trust, particularly since complaints to the Grand Jury were against the Chief himself.  The City’s “clarifications” sent to the Grand Jury on June 20 attempted to revise findings rather than accept responsibility. The Grand Jury’s report sent to the City on June 16 was final, not a draft. The Grand Jury's policy is to share the report in advance so the City wouldn’t be blindsided, not to offer edits.  SLOPD’s response to St. Fratty’s Day (2022, 2023, 2024) was inadequate. Residents repeatedly warned the City and offered solutions. Despite claims to the contrary, streets were barricaded in 2022. My email sent in July 2022 warned of the March 2023 St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s back-to-back holiday weekend. The warning was ignored as the event doubled in size each year, until the Grand Jury finally prompted action in 2025.  The Police Chief has misrepresented facts publicly, retaliated against critics, and has not been transparent, including when asked about misinformation in the police log. I submitted documentation of efforts to silence and retaliate against the Neighborhood Representative on the SCLC, and the report was ignored. 2  Video documentation showed inappropriate conduct by an SLOPD officer who made disparaging remarks about neighborhood residents and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) while responding to a noise complaint. He did not know the residents involved, making his bias especially concerning. This was reported and disregarded.  Residents from the neighborhood were not included on the task force, even though this request was made during SCLC meetings.  The City has failed to act on clear evidence of illegal fraternity houses. Despite receiving Cal Poly’s AB 524 report in 2023 , a separate report with significant documentation, and continued documentation and confirmation of dozens of illegal fraternities, including 12 main chapter houses operating illegally in R1/R2 zones, these illegal fraternities are still operating. The City should have filed a Writ of Mandate to compel Cal Poly to release fraternity addresses after Cal Poly refused to provide the addresses when requested per the CA Public Records Act. I drafted one myself, but it is the City’s legal and ethical obligation to act. Residents should not have to do the work of City staff to obtain the addresses of illegal fraternity operations from Cal Poly. It is the City's responsibility to solve the illegal fraternity problem and enforce the municipal code. Here is what should happen now: 1. Agendize the Grand Jury report for immediate public discussion. 2. File a Writ of Mandate to obtain fraternity addresses from Cal Poly. 3. Begin enforcement of illegal fraternities using the proper legal standard: preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not, based on the documentation. The code enforcement officer, primarily tasked with handling the complaints against illegal fraternities, has been wrongfully dismissing complaints based on the incorrect standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. Include residents affected by St. Fratty's Day on the task force. 5. Ensure SCLC meetings are recorded and archived starting August 2025. The Grand Jury’s findings demand real action, not excuses, edits, or delays. The City now has a chance to restore public trust by responding decisively and transparently. Thank you in advance for addressing these issues. Sincerely, Kathie Walker cc. Planning Commissioners; City Manager, Whitney McDonald 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 8:12 AM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report Hi Kathie, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the upcoming meeting on July 15, 2025. Please note, the agenda will be posted at least one week in advance of the meeting date. 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: Monday, June 30, 2025 1:28 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report Dear City Councilmembers, Transparency in government is more critical than ever. As a long-time San Luis Obispo resident who has reported illegal fraternity houses and their disruptive impact since Fall 2021, I’m deeply disheartened by your continued inaction. I’ve submitted videos, spoken during public comment, and repeatedly asked that this issue be agendized, which you have rejected. In the past four years, the only change has been that more long-time residents have left our neighborhood. The Grand Jury’s recent report, Round and Round with Town Gown, confirmed what residents have said all along: the City has failed to enforce its laws and protect our neighborhoods. The Grand Jury interviewed 15 people, primarily City staff. They reviewed a ton of documentation (including that provided by the City) and visited the neighborhood so they could assess the problem themselves. The Grand Jury does not have a political agenda, and the investigation was independent of any particular influence. 2 When asked for comment on the Grand Jury report, the City's responses have been evasive and defensive. Mayor Erica Stewart’s claim that the matter can’t be discussed until September -despite available space on upcoming agendas - is unacceptable. The City Council is supposed to represent the residents, not the City itself. I urge you to immediately agendize the Grand Jury report and related issues for public discussion. I also request that the City Council convene a meeting that includes Cal Poly, Greek Life, the City, and Residents in the affected neighborhoods, so there can be meaningful dialogue toward solving the problem. These are some of the key points from my experience:  The Grand Jury cited serious concerns with illegal fraternities, enforcement failures, SLOPD leadership, and lack of transparency. I was interviewed and provided documentation requested, including recordings of the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) meetings for the past year.  Cal Poly cooperated fully with the Grand Jury, while the Police Chief blocked interviews with two senior officers, hampering the investigation. This behavior erodes public trust, particularly since complaints to the Grand Jury were against the Chief himself.  The City’s “clarifications” sent to the Grand Jury on June 20 attempted to revise findings rather than accept responsibility. The Grand Jury’s report sent to the City on June 16 was final, not a draft. The Grand Jury's policy is to share the report in advance so the City wouldn’t be blindsided, not to offer edits.  SLOPD’s response to St. Fratty’s Day (2022, 2023, 2024) was inadequate. Residents repeatedly warned the City and offered solutions. Despite claims to the contrary, streets were barricaded in 2022. My email sent in July 2022 warned of the March 2023 St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s back-to-back holiday weekend. The warning was ignored as the event doubled in size each year, until the Grand Jury finally prompted action in 2025.  The Police Chief has misrepresented facts publicly, retaliated against critics, and has not been transparent, including when asked about misinformation in the police log. I submitted documentation of efforts to silence and retaliate against the Neighborhood Representative on the SCLC, and the report was ignored.  Video documentation showed inappropriate conduct by an SLOPD officer who made disparaging remarks about neighborhood residents and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) while responding to a noise complaint. He did not know the residents involved, making his bias especially concerning. This was reported and disregarded.  Residents from the neighborhood were not included on the task force, even though this request was made during SCLC meetings.  The City has failed to act on clear evidence of illegal fraternity houses. Despite receiving Cal Poly’s AB 524 report in 2023 , a separate report with significant documentation, and continued documentation and confirmation of dozens of illegal fraternities, including 12 main chapter houses operating illegally in R1/R2 zones, these illegal fraternities are still operating. The City should have filed a Writ of Mandate to compel Cal Poly to release fraternity addresses after Cal Poly refused to provide the addresses when requested per the CA Public Records Act. I drafted one myself, but it is the City’s legal and ethical obligation to act. Residents should not have to do the work of City staff to obtain the addresses of illegal fraternity operations from Cal Poly. It is the City's responsibility to solve the illegal fraternity problem and enforce the municipal code. Here is what should happen now: 1. Agendize the Grand Jury report for immediate public discussion. 2. File a Writ of Mandate to obtain fraternity addresses from Cal Poly. 3. Begin enforcement of illegal fraternities using the proper legal standard: preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not, based on the documentation. The code enforcement officer, primarily tasked with handling the complaints against illegal fraternities, has been wrongfully dismissing complaints based on the incorrect standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt. 3 4. Include residents affected by St. Fratty's Day on the task force. 5. Ensure SCLC meetings are recorded and archived starting August 2025. The Grand Jury’s findings demand real action, not excuses, edits, or delays. The City now has a chance to restore public trust by responding decisively and transparently. Thank you in advance for addressing these issues. Sincerely, Kathie Walker cc. Planning Commissioners; City Manager, Whitney McDonald 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 8:18 AM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report Hi Kathie, Thank you and yes, I have sent it over to the Planning Commissioners as well. My apologies for not including that in my last message. Have a great day! 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, July 1, 2025 8:14 AM To: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report Thank you. Would you please forward it to the Planning Commissioners, as well? They were named as being copied in my email. -Kathie On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 8:12 AM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the upcoming meeting on July 15, 2025. Please note, the agenda will be posted at least one week in advance of the meeting date. Best, 2 Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 1:28 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report Dear City Councilmembers, Transparency in government is more critical than ever. As a long-time San Luis Obispo resident who has reported illegal fraternity houses and their disruptive impact since Fall 2021, I’m deeply disheartened by your continued inaction. I’ve submitted videos, spoken during public comment, and repeatedly asked that this issue be agendized, which you have rejected. In the past four years, the only change has been that more long-time residents have left our neighborhood. The Grand Jury’s recent report, Round and Round with Town Gown, confirmed what residents have said all along: the City has failed to enforce its laws and protect our neighborhoods. The Grand Jury interviewed 15 people, primarily City staff. They reviewed a ton of documentation (including that provided by the City) and visited the neighborhood so they could assess the problem themselves. The Grand Jury does not have a political agenda, and the investigation was independent of any particular influence. When asked for comment on the Grand Jury report, the City's responses have been evasive and defensive. Mayor Erica Stewart’s claim that the matter can’t be discussed until September -despite available space on upcoming agendas - is unacceptable. The City Council is supposed to represent the residents, not the City itself. I urge you to immediately agendize the Grand Jury report and related issues for public discussion. I also request that the City Council convene a meeting that includes Cal Poly, Greek Life, the City, and Residents in the affected neighborhoods, so there can be meaningful dialogue toward solving the problem. These are some of the key points from my experience: 3  The Grand Jury cited serious concerns with illegal fraternities, enforcement failures, SLOPD leadership, and lack of transparency. I was interviewed and provided documentation requested, including recordings of the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) meetings for the past year.  Cal Poly cooperated fully with the Grand Jury, while the Police Chief blocked interviews with two senior officers, hampering the investigation. This behavior erodes public trust, particularly since complaints to the Grand Jury were against the Chief himself.  The City’s “clarifications” sent to the Grand Jury on June 20 attempted to revise findings rather than accept responsibility. The Grand Jury’s report sent to the City on June 16 was final, not a draft. The Grand Jury's policy is to share the report in advance so the City wouldn’t be blindsided, not to offer edits.  SLOPD’s response to St. Fratty’s Day (2022, 2023, 2024) was inadequate. Residents repeatedly warned the City and offered solutions. Despite claims to the contrary, streets were barricaded in 2022. My email sent in July 2022 warned of the March 2023 St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s back-to-back holiday weekend. The warning was ignored as the event doubled in size each year, until the Grand Jury finally prompted action in 2025.  The Police Chief has misrepresented facts publicly, retaliated against critics, and has not been transparent, including when asked about misinformation in the police log. I submitted documentation of efforts to silence and retaliate against the Neighborhood Representative on the SCLC, and the report was ignored.  Video documentation showed inappropriate conduct by an SLOPD officer who made disparaging remarks about neighborhood residents and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) while responding to a noise complaint. He did not know the residents involved, making his bias especially concerning. This was reported and disregarded.  Residents from the neighborhood were not included on the task force, even though this request was made during SCLC meetings.  The City has failed to act on clear evidence of illegal fraternity houses. Despite receiving Cal Poly’s AB 524 report in 2023 , a separate report with significant documentation, and continued documentation and confirmation of dozens of illegal fraternities, including 12 main chapter houses operating illegally in R1/R2 zones, these illegal fraternities are still operating. The City should have filed a Writ of Mandate to compel Cal Poly to release fraternity addresses after Cal Poly refused to provide the addresses when requested per the CA Public Records Act. I drafted one myself, but it is the City’s legal and ethical obligation to act. Residents should not have to do the work of City staff to obtain the addresses of illegal fraternity operations from Cal Poly. It is the City's responsibility to solve the illegal fraternity problem and enforce the municipal code. Here is what should happen now: 1. Agendize the Grand Jury report for immediate public discussion. 2. File a Writ of Mandate to obtain fraternity addresses from Cal Poly. 3. Begin enforcement of illegal fraternities using the proper legal standard: preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not, based on the documentation. The code enforcement officer, primarily tasked with handling the complaints against illegal fraternities, has been wrongfully dismissing complaints based on the incorrect standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. Include residents affected by St. Fratty's Day on the task force. 5. Ensure SCLC meetings are recorded and archived starting August 2025. The Grand Jury’s findings demand real action, not excuses, edits, or delays. The City now has a chance to restore public trust by responding decisively and transparently. Thank you in advance for addressing these issues. Sincerely, 4 Kathie Walker cc. Planning Commissioners; City Manager, Whitney McDonald 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 8:14 AM To:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Subject:Re: Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report Thank you. Would you please forward it to the Planning Commissioners, as well? They were named as being copied in my email. -Kathie On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 8:12 AM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the upcoming meeting on July 15, 2025. Please note, the agenda will be posted at least one week in advance of the meeting date. 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: Monday, June 30, 2025 1:28 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report 2 Dear City Councilmembers, Transparency in government is more critical than ever. As a long-time San Luis Obispo resident who has reported illegal fraternity houses and their disruptive impact since Fall 2021, I’m deeply disheartened by your continued inaction. I’ve submitted videos, spoken during public comment, and repeatedly asked that this issue be agendized, which you have rejected. In the past four years, the only change has been that more long-time residents have left our neighborhood. The Grand Jury’s recent report, Round and Round with Town Gown, confirmed what residents have said all along: the City has failed to enforce its laws and protect our neighborhoods. The Grand Jury interviewed 15 people, primarily City staff. They reviewed a ton of documentation (including that provided by the City) and visited the neighborhood so they could assess the problem themselves. The Grand Jury does not have a political agenda, and the investigation was independent of any particular influence. When asked for comment on the Grand Jury report, the City's responses have been evasive and defensive. Mayor Erica Stewart’s claim that the matter can’t be discussed until September -despite available space on upcoming agendas - is unacceptable. The City Council is supposed to represent the residents, not the City itself. I urge you to immediately agendize the Grand Jury report and related issues for public discussion. I also request that the City Council convene a meeting that includes Cal Poly, Greek Life, the City, and Residents in the affected neighborhoods, so there can be meaningful dialogue toward solving the problem. These are some of the key points from my experience:  The Grand Jury cited serious concerns with illegal fraternities, enforcement failures, SLOPD leadership, and lack of transparency. I was interviewed and provided documentation requested, including recordings of the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) meetings for the past year.  Cal Poly cooperated fully with the Grand Jury, while the Police Chief blocked interviews with two senior officers, hampering the investigation. This behavior erodes public trust, particularly since complaints to the Grand Jury were against the Chief himself.  The City’s “clarifications” sent to the Grand Jury on June 20 attempted to revise findings rather than accept responsibility. The Grand Jury’s report sent to the City on June 16 was final, not a draft. The Grand Jury's policy is to share the report in advance so the City wouldn’t be blindsided, not to offer edits.  SLOPD’s response to St. Fratty’s Day (2022, 2023, 2024) was inadequate. Residents repeatedly warned the City and offered solutions. Despite claims to the contrary, streets were barricaded in 2022. My email sent in July 2022 warned of the March 2023 St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s back-to-back holiday weekend. The warning was ignored as the event doubled in size each year, until the Grand Jury finally prompted action in 2025.  The Police Chief has misrepresented facts publicly, retaliated against critics, and has not been transparent, including when asked about misinformation in the police log. I submitted documentation of efforts to silence and retaliate against the Neighborhood Representative on the SCLC, and the report was ignored.  Video documentation showed inappropriate conduct by an SLOPD officer who made disparaging remarks about neighborhood residents and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) while responding to a noise complaint. He did not know the residents involved, making his bias especially concerning. This was reported and disregarded.  Residents from the neighborhood were not included on the task force, even though this request was made during SCLC meetings.  The City has failed to act on clear evidence of illegal fraternity houses. Despite receiving Cal Poly’s AB 524 report in 2023 , a separate report with significant documentation, and continued documentation and confirmation of dozens of illegal 3 fraternities, including 12 main chapter houses operating illegally in R1/R2 zones, these illegal fraternities are still operating. The City should have filed a Writ of Mandate to compel Cal Poly to release fraternity addresses after Cal Poly refused to provide the addresses when requested per the CA Public Records Act. I drafted one myself, but it is the City’s legal and ethical obligation to act. Residents should not have to do the work of City staff to obtain the addresses of illegal fraternity operations from Cal Poly. It is the City's responsibility to solve the illegal fraternity problem and enforce the municipal code. Here is what should happen now: 1. Agendize the Grand Jury report for immediate public discussion. 2. File a Writ of Mandate to obtain fraternity addresses from Cal Poly. 3. Begin enforcement of illegal fraternities using the proper legal standard: preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not, based on the documentation. The code enforcement officer, primarily tasked with handling the complaints against illegal fraternities, has been wrongfully dismissing complaints based on the incorrect standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. Include residents affected by St. Fratty's Day on the task force. 5. Ensure SCLC meetings are recorded and archived starting August 2025. The Grand Jury’s findings demand real action, not excuses, edits, or delays. The City now has a chance to restore public trust by responding decisively and transparently. Thank you in advance for addressing these issues. Sincerely, Kathie Walker cc. Planning Commissioners; City Manager, Whitney McDonald 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:45 PM To:Stewart, Erica A; Shoresman, Michelle; Marx, Jan; Francis, Emily; Boswell, Mike; E-mail Council Website; Dietrick, Christine Subject:Tassajara/Ramona Neighborhood / Please Act to Protect All Neighborhoods Attachments:CPRA CAL POLY 2ND REQUEST.pdf; Writ of Mandate CPRA Cal Poly.pdf Dear City Councilmembers, The quality of life issues related to illegal fraternity operations have gravely affected the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods near campus. Over the past few years, the illegal fraternities have spread to other single-family residential neighborhoods further away, west of Santa Rosa Street, including Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF) and the Ramona/Tassajara neighborhood. It is probably not a coincidence that long- term residents/families are selling their homes and leaving the neighborhood. One family on Ramona Drive complained about an illegal fraternity behind them at 311 Foothill Blvd, which was identified in Cal Poly's AB 524 report as holding fraternity events. The property owner received a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations at 311 Foothill, but the noise from the fraternity continued. Last year, that family on Ramona Drive sold their home and moved away because the noise in the neighborhood was too much to take. A different family living on S. Tassajara reached out to RQN last year because Pi Kappa Phi is operating behind/diagonal from their home at 66 S. Rafael, and constant noise and disruptive fraternity events for several years have made their lives miserable. The family on S. Tassajara and the historic architectural renovation of their home were featured in SLO Life Magazine in early 2019, before the fraternity moved in behind them. Here is a link to the article, "As One", pages 54 - 62 https://issuu.com/slolifemagazine/docs/slolifefebmar2019lr. Even before the residents on S. Tassajara contacted RQN, I sent documentation to the City that showed Pi Kappa Phi was illegally operating at 66 S. Rafael, with social media posts that advertised fraternity-related events specifically at 66 S. Rafael since Fall 2022. The City did not take any action. Pi Kappa Phi is still operating at that address, including rush events during the 2024-2025 school year that were documented with video, with large Greek letters in their driveway during the event. I have continued to send documentation of fraternity events advertised on social media to the City without any resolution. There is also a significant history of noise complaints for 66 S. Rafael. Last week, a house occupied by a family was listed for sale at 53 S. Rafael, shown below in the black box. This house is across the street diagonally from Pi Kappa Psi's illegal fraternity house at 66 Rafael (red box, middle). Last year, another fraternity moved in directly behind 53 Rafael at 311 Del Mar Court (red box, far left) and has held fraternity-related events there. Another fraternity, Phi Gamma Delta or FIJI, is operating illegally, a block away at 451 Ramona Drive (red box, far right). 2 When fraternities illegally operate in neighborhoods, it starts with one or two. If the City doesn't stop them, more move into the neighborhood because there is an implicit message that it's okay, because other fraternities are also operating nearby. That's how the Alta Vista neighborhood became overrun with dozens of illegal fraternities, and Albert Drive has become the new Greek Row. Fraternity operations are not compatible with the lifestyle of families living in a residential neighborhood, and they are moving away. "Families" is defined broadly, including all sorts of groups who would traditionally live in a neighborhood with the expectation that they are not living next to or within earshot of a fraternity house, which is the equivalent of a downtown bar & nightclub moving into the neighborhood. There are constant disruptions from extremely noisy parties, increased traffic of 100+ loud, often intoxicated guests coming and going, vandalism, and other nuisances such as trespassing, vomiting, and using private yards as a toilet. The City, in its response to the Grand Jury on 6/20/2025, cited repeated attempts to work with Cal Poly to gain compliance, including the efforts listed below, which have not worked. I have included some additional items, in italics, for context:  January 10, 2024: City staff met with Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the complaints received regarding Fraternities and Sororities.  April 10, 2024: Follow-up meeting with Assistant Director of Fraternity & Sorority Life regarding the City's response to unpermitted Fraternities.  April 16, 2024: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities.  July 2024: Cal Poly edited its online AB 524 Reports and erased the addresses of all fraternity events for the 2023-2024 academic year.  August 2024: Community Development Director met with Cal Poly leadership to discuss the issue of Fraternities/Sororities and land use requirements for houses. 3  October 2024: Fraternities held fraternity rush events at their illegal fraternity house locations in R1/R2 neighborhoods, and the dates, times, and addresses of some of those illegal fraternity events were sent to the City, copied at the bottom of this email. The fraternities continued to hold fraternity parties and other events at their illegal fraternity houses throughout the academic year, and not a single fraternity ceased operations .  January 12, 2025: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities.  January 17 - 26, 2025: Fraternities ignored the City's presentation and held fraternity rush events at their illegal fraternity house locations in R1/R2 neighborhoods. Code Enforcement staff responded to addresses holding rush events, but when they approached some fraternity members at a check-in table with laptops in the front yard, the fraternity members denied that they were holding a rush event. Code Enforcement staff noted they were wearing shirts with Greek letters. Almost immediately, the fraternity members alerted other members at illegal fraternity houses in the neighborhood, which prompted other fraternities to move their check-in tables and laptops behind their fences. They then refused to answer the door to City staff, who heard the events in the backyards but did not cite them.  March 4, 2025: Meeting with City staff and Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the ongoing issues regarding Fraternities and Sororities and the upcoming "St. Fratty's Day" event. Cal Poly leadership and fraternities have ignored the City and have shown that they are not going to cooperate to solve this problem. The Grand Jury made clear that the City has not enforced its zoning ordinances and municipal codes, and ver 50 illegal fraternities have continued to operate illegally. Even more have been established in the neighborhoods over the past two years. In January 2025, I wrote to the City, including Christine Dietrick, and sent information about a case about 30 years ago when the City of SLO prosecuted a fraternity for operating without a use permit. I wanted Ms. Dietrick to use the same strategy to bring the most egregious violators into compliance. Nothing ever happened. In case you believe the situation is exaggerated because we are older residents, I encourage you to read the correspondence and listen to the 6/25/2025 testimony to the Planning Commission from younger residents near the Delta Upsilon fraternity house at 720 Foothill Blvd. A young property manager representing 28 residents of an apartment (1/3 college students and 2/3 working adults), and another young resident living nearby, spoke about the non-stop disruptive noise, lack of cooperation, and property damage they have dealt with from the fraternity members and their guests. They described what we live with constantly during the academic year. The difference is that Delta Upsilon was permitted and is only one fraternity house, while our neighborhood has over 30 illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternities. We are literally surrounded by numerous illegal fraternities, and cannot rest or sleep on weekends during the academic year. We have relied on you to solve the problem. I've been sending videos since Fall 2021, and the situation has not improved! Below is a link to some testimony from younger folks at the Planning Commission hearing on June 25, 2025: To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Planning Commission 6_25_2025 testimony.mp4 The constant stress and lack of sleep are EXTREMELY taxing on the mental and physical well-being of those living near the illegal fraternities. The younger folks who testified in the link above, confirmed the constant noise "is far more than an annoyance. It's a violaiton of their quiet enjoyment, and directly affects their health, well- being and livihood." It is devastating to the health and welfare of those living nearby! 4 You are our elected representatives and have the authority to direct the City Attorney to get the addresses from Cal Poly by filing a Writ of Mandamus with the SLO Superior Court. I am asking you to please do that. With the addresses, the City can bring the property owners into compliance with the law to restore our neighborhoods so people, including college students, can rest and sleep. Please ask the City Manager and City Attorney to take the necessary steps to get the addresses and solve this enormous problem that is worsening each year. In 2024, I prepared a draft Writ of Mandate and Points and Authorities Memorandum to compel Cal Poly to publish the addresses of its illegal fraternities. I am a paralegal and not a lawyer, plus I have not practiced for a long time, so the draft is not great, but it gives you an important timeline of events and history related to Cal Poly's fraternities. (Attached) Cal Poly's responses to my public records requests changed after each request I made, with a different excuse, and they never provided any information. The City can compel the release of the addresses by filing a Writ or similar action. Please take meaningful action to identify the illegal fraternities on file with Cal Poly's Greek Life office, and stop the illegal fraternity operations to restore our neighborhoods for the health and welfare of many residents impacted by illegal fraternities. Thank you, Kathie Walker Fall Rush Events at Illegal Fraternity Houses (The list only includes those that were documented.) Friday 10/4/2024: 1684-1688 Mill Street -R2 (Delta Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 281 Albert Drive -R1 (Delta Upsilon) MAIN SATELLITE HOUSE – It has a permitted house at 720 E. Foothill Blvd 248-250 Grand Ave -R1 (Theta Chi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE WITH 1844 MCCOLLUM (Shared Yards) 281 Hathway Ave -R1 (Kappa Sigma) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 348-350 Hathway Ave - R2 (Phi Sigma Kappa) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1525 Slack St -R1 (Sigma Pi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 2090 Hays - R1 (Sigma Epsilon) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1218-1220 Bond St - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1229 Fredericks - R1 (Phi Gamma Delta aka FIJI) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 654 & 658 Graves -R4 (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE Saturday 10/5/2024: 654 & 658 Graves -R4 (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 299 Albert - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) 12 Hathway - R1 (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1841 Slack St - R1 (Sigma Nu) 66 Rafael - R1 (Pi Kappa Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE IN THE CITY 1820 Hope - R1 (Theta Chi) Main Chapter House last year 2023-2024 322 Hathway - R2 (Kappa Sigma) 1908 Loomis - R1 (Phi Sigma Kappa) 1276 Bond St - R1 (Phi Kappa Psi) 589 Cuesta Drive - R1 (Delta Sigma Phi) 1555 Slack St - R1 (Sigma Pi) Sunday 10/6/2024 237 Albert Dr - R1 (Phi Kappa Psi) 124 Stenner - R4 (Sigma Pi) 171 Orange - R1 (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1646 Fredericks St - R1 (Zeta Beta Tau) 1868 Loomis -R1 (Delta Upsilon) 260 Chaplin - R1 (Phi Delta Theta) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1632 Fredericks - R1 (Sigma Nu) 255 Chaplin - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) 1 Kathie Walker December 11, 2023 Maren Hufton and the Civil Rights and Compliance Office - Public Records Access Unit California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo pra@calpoly.edu RE: Second request for records under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) Dear Ms. Hufton and Cal Poly Records Custodian, On 10/26/2023, I submitted a public records request for the addresses of Cal Poly fraternity satellite houses and their fraternity affiliations. You denied my request on 11/6/2023, citing exemptions according to California Government Code §§ 7922.000; 7927.705; 20 U.S.C. §1232g. The exemptions you listed do not apply to the records I requested, as outlined below. I am, therefore, renewing my request that you provide to me a list of every Cal Poly satellite fraternity house, with their address and fraternity affiliation, from the time period of August 1, 2020, to the present date. I am making this request under the California Public Records Act. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. §1232g Ms. Hufton on behalf of Cal Poly (hereafter referred to as “Cal Poly”) claims that FERPA does not permit release of addresses of satellite fraternity houses and therefore the information is exempt from production under the CPRA according to California Government Code §7927.705. However, FERPA does not apply to the disclosure of the addresses of satellite fraternity houses. FERPA defines “education records” as “those records, files, documents, and other materials which (i) contain information directly related to a student; and (ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.”1 In other words, there are two essential criteria for a document to be confidential under FERPA: it must “directly relate” to a student, and it must be “maintained” by the institution. The “directly relate” prong of FERPA substantially narrows the scope of what FERPA covers. To be a confidential FERPA record, a document must not merely mention a student; it must actually be about that student. For example, in a January 2011 ruling, a Florida state court ordered the University of Florida to release tapes and transcripts of Student Senate meetings that the college was withholding under FERPA. The judge ruled that, although the documents contained the names and voices of students, they were not the records “of” any particular student for FERPA purposes.2 The records I requested do not directly relate to, or ask for, any information that identifies any particular student. There are 18 fraternities within the Interfraternity Council (IFC) at Cal Poly and each chapter has many members, with a total of over 2,000 members amongst the 18 fraternities. While many fraternities have what they consider a main house, they also have several other fraternity houses which are considered “satellite 1 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A). 2 Bracco v. Machen, No. 01-2009-CA-4444, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 5 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 8th Cir. Jan. 10, 2011). 2 fraternity houses”. In fact, most Cal Poly fraternity houses are satellite fraternity houses. Some of the “main” fraternity houses are considered a “satellite fraternity house” and are located within lower-density neighborhoods. Some fraternity members live in the main houses, some live in the satellite fraternity houses and some don’t live in either. I do not want to know the names of anyone who lives at any of the addresses and am not requesting any information that would link anyone to any address. I am simply requesting a current list of addresses of the satellite fraternity houses and their fraternity affiliations, without providing any other information related to the tenants or fraternity members living at any of those addresses. The Legislature in California specifically found that the addresses of satellite fraternity houses are not protected under the provisions of FERPA. In February 2021, California Assembly Bill 524 (AB 524), also known as the Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act, was first introduced with the aim to increase transparency between campus-affiliated Greek organizations and the public. The legislation requires that all colleges and universities report various information regarding their fraternity organizations and members by posting the information in a prominent location on the college’s Greek Life homepage on or before October 1, 2023, and annually thereafter. AB 524 requires that the publicly accessible information include the addresses of fraternities and the locations, dates, and hours of sanctioned events held by each fraternity. The sanctioned events held by Cal Poly fraternities are largely held at satellite fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo. AB 524 was approved unanimously by the California Senate and signed by the governor on Sept. 13, 2022. During the third reading of the Assembly Bill in the Senate on June 14, 2022, the Senate acknowledged the privacy laws under FERPA, and found that the disclosure of the addresses of fraternities and the disclosure of the location, date, and time of any sanctioned event does not violate FERPA. On the passing of the Assembly Bill on August 15, 2022, it was specifically noted, "AB 524 will achieve transparency while respecting students' right to privacy as provided by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act by only providing non- identifiable information. These common-sense provisions strengthen public safety of higher education communities." As a result of AB 524, Cal Poly published links on their Greek Life website which correspond to each of the 18 IFC fraternities, and includes addresses of satellite fraternity houses, with the dates and times of sanctioned events held by the fraternity organizations at each of those addresses for the previous academic year. Remarkably, in their refusal to my records request, Cal Poly admits that they have already disclosed the addresses of Cal Poly’s satellite fraternity houses to the public as legally required by AB 524, while also alleging that those addresses are protected under FERPA. In any event, FERPA does not provide an exemption for the addresses of satellite fraternity houses and their fraternity affiliations, therefore the records must be released as I have requested in my public records request. California Public Records Act (CPRA) The California Public Records Act (CPRA) establishes a presumptive right of access to any record created or maintained by a public agency that relates in any way to the business of the public agency, and the record must be disclosed unless a statutory exception is shown. Statutory exemptions from compelled disclosure under the CPRA are narrowly construed, and the government agency opposing disclosure bears the burden of proving that one or more of the exemptions apply in a particular case.3 3 Caldecott v. Superior Court (App. 4 Dist. 2015) 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 223, 243 Cal.App.4th 212 3 The CPRA includes two exceptions to general policy of disclosure of public records: materials expressly exempt from disclosure, and the “catchall exception” which allows government agency to withhold records if it can demonstrate that, on facts of particular case, public interest served by withholding records clearly outweighs public interest served by disclosure.4 California Government Code § 7922.000 and justification for withholding of records with the “catch-all exemption” According to the provision of § 7922.000 - sometimes known as the catch-all exemption - an agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this division, or that “on the facts of the particular case” the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. The privacy and catchall statutory exemptions from mandatory disclosure under the CPRA must be narrowly construed.5 Gov. Code §7922.000 only permits the public agency to withhold a record under the catch-all exemption of §7922.000 on the basis that "on the facts of the particular case" the balancing of interests clearly favors nondisclosure. The numerous cases examining this balancing test place the burden on the local agency to show that the public interest in confidentiality outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In fact, given the public policy involved, courts demand a demonstration of “clear overbalance” to justify non-disclosure.6 The courts have consistently construed exemptions from disclosure narrowly and agencies’ disclosure obligations broadly.7 Ambiguities in the CPRA must be interpreted in a way that maximizes the public’s access to information unless the Legislature has expressly provided otherwise.8 Because the public interest in nondisclosure must clearly outweigh the public interest in disclosure, if the interests are just about equal, the scales tip in favor of disclosure. The courts have consistently held that public interest in disclosure overrides alleged privacy interests. The following cases are some examples as they were subject to disclosure under the public interest exemption balancing test: • The addresses of residential customers who exceeded their water allocations. The water district’s claim that providing names and addresses of residential customers who exceeded their water allocations would expose those people to verbal or physical harassment was insufficient to justify refusal to provide access to public records.9 • The identities of purchasers of luxury suites in a university arena even though those donors requested anonymity. Public interest in disclosure of public records in possession of state university which revealed identities of private donors who had entered into license agreements allowing them to use luxury suites 4 Wyatt v. Kern High School Dist. (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2022) 296 Cal.Rptr.3d 476 ADD 5 Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (App. 2 Dist. 2012) 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 395, 202 Cal.App.4th 1250 6 Iloh v. Regents of University of California (App. 4 Dist. 2023) 303 Cal.Rptr.3d 709; Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court (App. 5 Dist. 2004) 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 517; California State University v. Superior Court (App. 5 Dist. 2001) 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 870; See also Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974) 42. Cal App. 3d 645, 657. 7 Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469, 476; New York Times Co. V. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.app.3d 1579, 1578; San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 762, 772-773 8 Sierra Club v. Superior Court of Orange County (2013) 57 Cal.4th 157, 175-176. 9 New York Times Co. V. Superior Court (App 2 Dist. 1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1579. 4 in multipurpose arena being built on university campus was not outweighed by public interest in nondisclosure under catchall exemption to disclosure requirements of CPRA.10 • Identification of personal information in applications for concealed weapons permits. Possibility that disclosure of information in applications did not outweigh people’s right to know, such that records would be within this section; people’s right to know would not be limited on basis of inchoate fear that some would violate law rather than have their names disclosed.11 • Names of pharmaceutical companies and others providing a drug used for lethal injection to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Speculative claims regarding privacy and security interests were insufficient to establish that the public interest served by nondisclosure clearly outweighed the public interest served by disclosure of the names of the pharmaceutical companies and others from which the CDCR sought to acquire sodium thiopental, a drug used as part of the three-drug lethal injection protocol.12 • Coroner's investigation report related to a police officer’s alleged suicide.13 • The identities of individuals granted criminal conviction exemptions to work in licensed daycare facilities and the facilities employing them.14 • Court records of a settlement between the insurer for a school district and a minor sexual assault victim.15 • Disclosure of county’s geographical information system (GIS) basemap.16 Cal Poly claims that the public interest in disclosure of the requested information “is further reduced as there is already publicly available information about the location of the events and activities of Cal Poly recognized fraternities” which was posted on Cal Poly’s Greek Life website in compliance with AB 524. The fact that the addresses satellite fraternity houses are publicly available on Cal Poly’s website does not lessen Cal Poly’s obligation to provide a complete and current list of addresses for satellite fraternity houses according to my public records request. One major issue that is overlooked by Cal Poly is that the addresses of fraternities and sanctioned events that take place at those fraternities, including at satellite fraternity houses, are posted retrospectively for the previous academic year, in this case from August 2022-June 2023. It is not a complete list to include the satellite fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo for this academic year. Furthermore, Cal Poly is not required to post their updated list online, with the addresses of current satellite fraternity houses that have surfaced, until October 1, 2024, nearly one year from now. Meanwhile, in August 2023, multiple new satellite fraternity houses emerged in our lower-density (R-1 and R-2) residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo for this academic year of 2023-2024. They have their Greek letters posted on their property and/or fly their fraternity flags, and they host parties and other events. It seems evident that they are satellite fraternity houses but have just recently begun to operate as such, therefore they are not listed on Cal Poly’s AB 524 report posted online so there is no official recognition of their existence. Thus, I made a public records request to include the current list of satellite fraternity houses and their affiliations 10 California State University v. Superior Court (2001) 56 Cal.App.4th 601 11 CBS, Inc. V. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 230 Cal.Rptr. 362 12 American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. Superior Court (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55. 13 Edais v. Superior Court (2023) 303 Cal.Rptr. 3d 722 14 CBS Broadcasting Inc., v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 892 15 Copley Press, Inc., v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 367 16 County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 374, 170 Cal.App.4th 1301. 5 up until the present date. Regardless of my reasoning, one’s motivation to justify a public records request is not required.17 Based on the facts of this matter and case law, Cal Poly is unable to meet their burden of demonstrating a clear overbalance on the side of non-disclosure and must provide the records I requested. Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarification about my request. I can be reached at (805) 458-0713. Thank you, Kathie Walker 17 San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128, 139 Cal.App.4th 1356: “[U]nless exempted, all public records may be examined by any member of the public, often the press, but conceivably any person with no greater interest than idle curiosity.” - 1 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Name Title Address San Luis Obispo, CA Email/Phone Attorney for Petitioner/Plaintiff, KATHIE WALKER SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO KATHIE WALKER, Petitioner/Plaintiff, vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, and JEFFREY ARMSTRONG, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN LUIS OBISPO Respondents/Defendants. Case No.: VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS [California Public Records Act, Gov. Code Section 7920.000, et. seq.] Petitioner and Plaintiff KATHIE WALKER (“Petitioner”), an individual, petitions the Court, through this Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint (“Petition”), to command Respondents and Defendants, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and JEFFREY ARMSTRONG, in his official capacity as the President of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (collectively “Respondents” or “Cal Poly”), to comply with the - 2 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), Government Code section 7920.000 et. seq.,1 and the California Constitution, Article I, section 3(b), to declare that Respondents have failed to do so; and to enjoin them from continuing to violate the law by withholding public records requested by Petitioner. INTRODUCTION 1. This Petition seeks to enforce the people’s fundamental right of access to public records, including, but not limited to, the public’s right to receive records promptly and without an agency delaying or obstructing the inspection or copying of public records. §§ 7922.500, 7922.530(a). 2. ‘Modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.), the CPRA was enacted for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to records in the possession of state and local agencies.’ Iloh v. Regents of University of California 87 Cal.App.5th 513, 523 (2023). 3. In enacting the statute in 1968, the Legislature declared this right of access to be ‘a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state’ (§ 7921.000)—a declaration ratified by voters who amended the California Constitution in 2004 to secure a ‘right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business’ (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(1), added by Prop. 59, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2004)).” National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward 9 Cal.5th 488, 492 (2020). 4. The Constitution requires that any “statute, court rule, or other authority . . . shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.” Id. § 3(b)(2). 1 Unless otherwise specified, all future statutory references in this Petition are to the California Government Code. - 3 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. Respondents are withholding public records in violation of the CPRA. Since October 2023, the Petitioner has submitted multiple narrow requests to Respondents for public records regarding the operations of fraternities at Cal Poly. To ensure the individual privacy rights of fraternity members, Plaintiff specifically excluded any personally identifiable information that directly relates to any particular student from each of her requests, such as names. Plaintiff’s request was limited to the addresses of Cal Poly’s fraternity houses, including satellite fraternity houses, and their fraternity affiliation; and addresses of “sanctioned events” held by fraternities from 7/1/2023 to 6/30/2024, which includes the academic year 2023-2024. 6. Respondents denied the Petitioner’s requests, claiming the records requested are exempt from disclosure and/or are “not public records”. 7. Despite Petitioner’s multiple requests, Respondents have repeatedly and unlawfully refused to disclose the requested records, making it necessary to file this action to enforce the public’s interest in disclosure of records documenting the operations of fraternities at a state university. Relief is required because, to date, Respondents have failed to meet their obligations under the CPRA. PARTIES 8. Petitioner is a member of the public under section 7920.515 and is beneficially interested in the outcome of these proceedings; Petitioner has a clear, present, and substantial right to the relief sought herein. 9. Respondent Board of Trustees of the California State University is a state agency under section 7920.540 that is in possession of public records subject to mandatory disclosure under the CPRA. - 4 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. Respondent Jeffrey Armstrong is the President of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo and is the public official who oversees the department that has denied Petitioner access to the requested records. In denying access to the records requested by Petitioner, Cal Poly’s representatives were acting on behalf of Armstrong, and Armstrong is the public official responsible for the denial of Petitioner’s requests and was acting at all relevant times for and on behalf of Cal Poly. He is sued in his official capacity. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. Under section 7923.000, “[a]ny person may institute a proceeding for injunctive or declarative relief, or for a writ of mandate . . . to enforce that person’s right under” the CPRA “to inspect or receive a copy of any public record or class of public records.” 12. According to section 7923.100, “Whenever it is made to appear, by verified petition to the superior court of the county where the records or some part thereof are situated, that certain public records are being improperly withheld from a member of the public, the court shall order the officer or other person charged with withholding the records to disclose those records or show cause why that person should not do so.” 13. The relief sought by the Petitioner is expressly authorized under sections 7923.000 and 7923.100, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1060 and 1085, et seq., and Article 1, section 3(b) and Article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution. 14. Venue is proper under Code of Civil Procedure sections 394 and 395 and Government Code section 7923.100. Petitioner is informed and believes that the records to which she seeks access are in San Luis Obispo County and that the acts and events giving rise to the claim occurred in San Luis Obispo County. STATEMENT OF FACTS - 5 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Cal Poly’s Fraternities 15. There are 19 recognized fraternities in the Interfraternity Council (“IFC”) at Cal Poly. One fraternity is suspended until Fall 2025; therefore 18 fraternities are currently in good standing. 16. Cal Poly provides funding for its fraternities including but not limited to staff members and a Greek Life office located on Cal Poly’s campus. 17. City of San Luis Obispo staff, through the course of their employment with the city, meet with members of Cal Poly’s sororities and fraternities and/or Cal Poly Greek Life staff throughout the academic year. 18. Cal Poly does not have a Greek Row, nor does it not provide fraternity housing to its fraternities, including main Chapter house facilities. Consequently, the burden for housing Cal Poly’s fraternities is shifted to off-campus locations in neighborhoods. 19. Most fraternities at Cal Poly occupy multiple fraternity houses, including their main Chapter house and “satellite” fraternity house(s) in San Luis Obispo, but do not own those homes. 20. Approximately 65 fraternity houses, including “satellite houses”, are documented Cal Poly fraternities in the IFC that host fraternity-related parties (“sanctioned events”) according to information available online including social media posts and /or a report filed by Cal Poly on October 1, 2023, as mandated by Assembly Bill 524: The Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act. (“AB 524”) Upon information and belief, apart from one fraternity that has a Chapter house in the county of San Luis Obispo at 740 W. Foothill, all other Cal Poly fraternities operate their main Chapter houses in the city of San Luis Obispo. 21. Upon information and belief, many complaints for noise to SLOPD during the academic years 2022 – 2024 were related to fraternity-related events (sanctioned events and/or - 6 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 parties) held at fraternity houses, including main Chapter houses and satellite fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo. 22. Upon information and belief, a large percentage of “unruly gathering” citations were issued by SLOPD to fraternity houses, including main Chapter houses and satellite houses, between 2022 and 2024. SLOMC § 9.13.030A, defines and unruly gathering as: “a gathering of twenty or more persons on private property that results in …“conduct that causes a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property in a significant segment of an immediate neighborhood, or presents a threat to the health and safety…” [which] shall include, but is not limited to, any or all of the following: a noise disturbance; obstruction of public streets or rights-of-way by people or vehicles; public drunkenness; unlawful possession of alcohol or drugs; serving alcohol to minors; fights; disturbances of the peace; urinating or defecating in public; setting off fireworks; vandalism; littering on public property or private property not belonging to the host of the gathering; presence of persons on rooftop areas not designed for occupancy; unpermitted live bands, amplified music or DJs; and throwing bottles or other objects or substances at law enforcement or any other person. conduct that causes a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property in a significant segment of an immediate neighborhood, or presents a threat to the health, welfare, and safety of those in attendance”. 23. Cal Poly student Carson Starkey died of acute alcohol poisoning at a satellite fraternity house on December 2, 2008, after fraternity-related hazing. According to court testimony, Starkey was among the pledges who were ordered by Sigma Alpha Epsilon leaders to drink large quantities of alcohol in a matter of minutes – some of whom were encouraged to vomit and keep drinking. Starkey’s blood-alcohol level was 0.44, or about five times the legal limit. 24. As a result of Starkey’s death, Cal Poly considered eliminating fraternities. Instead, Cal Poly President, Jeffrey Armstrong (“Armstrong”), implemented a deferred rush policy in 2010, whereby freshmen males at Cal Poly could not join fraternities until their second quarter in the winter instead of their first quarter in the fall. 25. Soon after the deferred recruitment policy was announced, representatives from the North American Interfraternity Conference (“NIC”), which represented 75 national fraternities, - 7 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 visited Cal Poly to meet with administrators and spurred a three-year campaign to restore recruitment of freshman fraternity members in the fall. 26. In 2013, Armstrong entered into an agreement called the Deferred Recruitment Compromise (“the Compromise”) with Cal Poly’s IFC President, United Sorority and Fraternity Council President, Panhellenic Council President, and Vice President for Student Affairs, Keith Humphrey. The Compromise set forth commitments for Cal Poly’s Greek Community and for Cal Poly’s Administration, including: • Fall 2013: Fraternities will have “More opportunities for students to visit Chapters and potentially receive a bid” to join a fraternity. “(Applicable to IFC only)” • Winter 2014: “Interim Policy regarding party registration (including satellite houses) and alcohol management” • Fall 2014: “Final policy regarding party registration” • Fall 2014: “Greek Row - Committed to begin early discussion regarding the feasibility of an on-campus Greek Row.” • Fall 2013: Cal Poly will “Eliminate deferred recruitment for all Chapters.” • Fall 2013: Cal Poly “Will work with the NIC to recruit more Chapters to campus (Applicable to IFC only)” • Fall 2014: Cal Poly “Will work with the Chancellor’s Office to explore Greek housing regulations.” A true and correct copy of the Deferred Recruitment Compromise is attached as Exhibit 1. 27. In Fall 2014, as mandated by the Compromise, Cal Poly implemented Party Registration Policy and Guidelines (“Cal Poly’s Policy”) for their sororities and fraternities, which require that fraternities host “parties” or sanctioned events at either (1) the Chapter facility, (2) a registered satellite house, or (3) a contracted third-party venue. A true and correct copy of the Party Registration Policy and Guidelines is attached as Exhibit 2. 28. A “satellite house” is defined by Cal Poly as “a house where a majority of occupants are fraternity members and/or anywhere the fraternity wants to host an official chapter event,” - 8 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 according to an email from Cal Poly’s Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life, Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola on October 26, 2023. A true and correct copy of the email is attached as Exhibit 3. 29. Cal Poly’s Policy, Article II (A) states “all off-campus parties must be held at either the chapter facility, registered satellite house, or a contracted third-party venue,” and defines “a satellite house” as “any residence where the majority of occupants are members of the chapter for the purpose of this policy.” 30. Cal Poly’s Policy, Article I state the following definition for “a party”: “A. In keeping with the Dean of Students Greek Life Alcohol and Drugs policy, one or more of the following points will define an alcohol-related event: i. The event occurs while at a chapter facility or satellite house, ii. During a fraternity or sorority event, iii. In any situation sponsored or endorsed by the chapter, iv. At any event an observer would associate with the fraternity or sorority.” 31. Parties held by fraternities must be registered pursuant to Cal Poly’s Policy, Article XI (H) which states: “Registration paperwork will include the following: i. Chapter(s) hosting ii. Date & Time iii. Location iv. Description & purpose of party v. Expected number of guests vi. Risk management policy vii. A copy of the liquor license and liability insurance for the 3rd party vendor, if hired to serve alcohol at the event. viii. Point of contact ix. Any required contracts x. Invited parties xi. Any advertisement that may be used” It is unclear whether “registration paperwork” refers to hard copies or if the information is submitted online, and/or where those records are located. - 9 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 32. AB 524 (Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (a)(7)), defines a “sanctioned event” as any event in which one of the following occurs: A. The institution deems the event to be sanctioned by a fraternity or sorority according to their campus policies and practices. B. The name of a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity or participating sorority or fraternity is used to market or publicize the event. C. The name of a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity or participating sorority or fraternity is displayed at the event. D. Official funds of a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity or participating sorority or fraternity are used for the purchase and reimbursement of food, beverages, supplies, venue-related costs, publicity, party rentals, damages or cleanup fees, or any other costs associated with the event. E. A campus-recognized sorority or fraternity or participating sorority or fraternity, or a benefactor officially affiliated with the sorority or fraternity, receives any portion of funds raised from attendance fees, ticket sales, or other forms of admission fees associated with the event. 33. Upon information and belief, Respondents have documentation for each main Chapter facility and each “registered satellite house” for its fraternities and sororities pursuant to Cal Poly’s Policy, including Article II (A) and Article XI (H). 34. Upon information and belief, sanctioned events at fraternity houses include, but are not limited to, parties hosting Cal Poly’s sororities because the Panhellenic Conference governing sororities prohibits parties with alcohol at sorority houses, rush recruitment, themed gatherings (TGs), live DJ events, beer die tournaments, and philanthropic events and/or fundraisers such as live music events that charge for admission. These fraternity-related parties (“sanctioned events”) can, and often do, include over a hundred people. They frequently occur in outdoor yards at fraternities, including satellite houses. 35. The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (“SLOMC”) and Zoning Regulations prohibit fraternity and sorority operations in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and require a conditional use permit for fraternity operations in R-3 and R-4 zones. San Luis Obispo defines a fraternity as a “Residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational association that is - 10 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings.” (SLOMC Ch. 17.156.014) 36. Cal Poly continues to recruit new fraternity Chapters to their campus without making provisions for legal locations for its fraternity houses. In 2016, an eight-year expansion plan was approved to invite four new IFC fraternity Chapters to Cal Poly. The plan was created by a committee including IFC members and Cal Poly staff such as the Dean of Students, the Assistant Director for Center of Leadership and Service, and the Fraternity and Sorority Life Coordinator. 37. The four new fraternities they recruited are Alpha Sigma Phi, Phi Gamma Delta, Phi Delta Theta and Pi Kappa Phi. None of the fraternity houses for these fraternities in the city of San Luis Obispo are in legally permitted locations. • Alpha Sigma Phi has its main Chapter house at 1218 & 1220 Bond Street, in an R-1 residential neighborhood. It also has a satellite house at 299 Albert Drive, in an R-1 residential neighborhood. Each of these locations has held sanctioned events and have received multiple noise complaints to SLOPD since the fraternity moved in. • Phi Gamma Delta has its main Chapter house at 1229 Fredericks Street, it an R-2 residential neighborhood. This location has hosted sanctioned events and has received multiple noise complaints to SLOPD since the fraternity moved in. • Phi Delta Theta has its main Chapter house at 260 Chaplin Lane, in an R-1 residential neighborhood. It also has satellite houses at 470 Grand Avenue, which is an R-1 residential neighborhood, and 568 Ellen Way, which is an R-2 residential neighborhood. Each of these locations has hosted sanctioned events and has received multiple noise complaints to SLOPD since the fraternity moved in. - 11 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • Pi Kappa Phi has its main fraternity house in the county of San Luis Obispo at 740 W. Foothill and is the only fraternity at Cal Poly located outside of the city limits of San Luis Obispo. Pi Kappa Phi has other satellite houses in R-1 residential neighborhoods in the city including 66 Rafael Way, which has held sanctioned events, and has received multiple noise complaints to SLOPD since the fraternity moved in. 38. Upon information and belief, there are over 50 fraternity houses including satellite houses for Cal Poly’s fraternities in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo that held sanctioned events in those neighborhoods between September 2022 and June 2024. 39. Upon information and belief, there are approximately 10 non-permitted fraternity houses, including satellite houses, for Cal Poly’s fraternities in R-3 and R-4 zones in San Luis Obispo that hosted sanctioned events in those neighborhoods between September 2022 and June 2024. 40. Upon information and belief, only six of Cal Poly’s 19 recognized fraternities in the IFC have permitted fraternity locations for their main Chapter house facility in San Luis Obispo. One of those 19 fraternities is working with the County to gain permits for a location at 740 W. Foothill, but the main Chapter houses for each of the remaining 12 fraternities are located within the city of San Luis Obispo. 41. Upon information and belief, the main Chapter houses for many of Cal Poly’s fraternities are considered “satellite houses” and are R-1 and R-2 in residential neighborhoods. 42. On or about October 25, 2023, Petitioner requested copies of the following public records pursuant to the CPRA: “a list of every satellite fraternity house, with their address and fraternity affiliation, from the time period of August 1, 2020, to the present.” A true and correct copy of the request is attached as Exhibit 4. - 12 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 43. On or about November 6, 2023, Records Access Officer, Maren Hufton, denied the Petitioner’s request on behalf of Respondents stating: “Cal Poly has conducted a reasonable search for these records under Government Code §7922.535 and has determined that the records you seek are exempt from production under the Public Records Act and will not be produced. Cal. Gov’t Code §§7922.000; 7927.705; 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.” The message from Ms. Hufton described the CPRA and stated, “The addresses of satellite fraternity houses (i.e. student residential addresses - which is considered student contact/directory information) and their fraternity affiliations do not contribute to the public's understanding of the university's business and therefore is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.” The message also cited exemptions under 34 CFR §99.3, U.S.C. § 1232g, The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, (“FERPA”), and did not describe the context in which FERPA applies to the records requested by Petitioner. The Petitioner did not request any personally identifiable information that directly relates to a particular student, or that would identify a specific student with reasonable certainty. The message also cited the “catch all” exemption §7922.000 but did not clearly demonstrate based on the facts of this particular case that the public interest in nondisclosure is outweighed by disclosure. Finally, the message directed the Petitioner to Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report, which included lists of sanctioned events for each fraternity and sorority during the 2022-2023 academic year, including the date, time and address location of each event, and stated: “The public interest in disclosure of the requested information is further reduced as there is already publicly available information about the location of the events and activities of Cal Poly recognized fraternities and sororities. In compliance with AB524 (Ed Code § 66310 et seq), Cal Poly has publicly posted its 2022-2023 Campus Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act Report at the below web address: https://greeklife.calpoly.edu/reports” A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit 5. - 13 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 44. On or about December 11, 2023, Petitioner messaged Respondents, and again sought records pursuant to the CPRA. Petitioner stated: “The exemptions you listed do not apply to the records I requested, as outlined below. I am, therefore, renewing my request that you provide to me a list of every Cal Poly satellite fraternity house, with their address and fraternity affiliation, from the period of August 1, 2020, to the present date.” The Petitioner submitted legislation and case law in support of her request for records, which she claimed were not subject to any exemptions under the CPRA. Petitioner also stated: “The fact that the addresses satellite fraternity houses are publicly available on Cal Poly’s website does not lessen Cal Poly’s obligation to provide a complete and current list of addresses for satellite fraternity houses according to my public records request. One major issue that is overlooked by Cal Poly is that the addresses of fraternities and sanctioned events that take place at those fraternities, including at satellite fraternity houses, are posted retrospectively for the previous academic year, in this case from August 2022 - June 2023. It is not a complete list to include the satellite fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo for this academic year.” “…. Meanwhile, in August 2023, multiple new satellite fraternity houses emerged in our lower-density (R-1 and R-2) residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo for this academic year of 2023-2024. They have their Greek letters posted on their property and/or fly their fraternity flags, and they host parties and other events. It seems evident that they are satellite fraternity houses but have just recently begun to operate as such, therefore they are not listed on Cal Poly’s AB 524 report posted online so there is no official recognition of their existence. Thus, I made a public records request to include the current list of satellite fraternity houses and their affiliations up until the present date. Regardless of my reasoning, one’s motivation to justify a public records request is not required. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128, 139 Cal.App.4th 1356: “[U]nless exempted, all public records may be examined by any member of the public, often the press, but conceivably any person with no greater interest than idle curiosity.” Based on the facts of this matter and case law, Cal Poly is unable to meet their burden of demonstrating a clear overbalance on the side of non-disclosure and must provide the records I requested. Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarification about my request.” A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit 6. - 14 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 45. On or before December 21, 2023, Records Access Officer, Maren Hufton, responded to Petitioner’s request on behalf of Respondents by claiming that the records sought are related to “independent organizations” and “are not public records” subject to the CPRA Act: “The addresses of “satellite fraternity houses” (i.e., student addresses) and their fraternity affiliations are not records regarding the conduct of the university’s business. These fraternities are independent organizations. To the extent that the university may have information concerning their addresses, disclosure of such records does not contribute to the public's understanding of the university's business and therefore these are not public records to be disclosed under the public records act.” The message stated further, even if the requested records were construed as public records, the records would be subject to a list of exemptions described in the abstract and did not indicate how they apply to the records requested by the Petitioner, below: • “Materials that reflect student education records or may violate student privacy. Cal. Govt. Code §§7927.705, 7922.000; 21 U.S.C. §1232g. • General Privacy Rights. Cal. Govt. Code §7927.705; Cal. Const. Art. 1, §1.2 • Records where the public interest against disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Cal. Govt. Code §7922.000.” The message also referenced the AB 524 Report, which included a list of all “Affiliated Chapter Houses” according to the definition of AB 524 and Calif. Ed. Code § 66312(a)(3). This definition is limited to residences on or off campus that are owned by the institution of higher education but occupied by a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity - of which there are none at Cal Poly - or any residences located on or off campus that are owned and occupied by the campus-recognized sorority or fraternity. Only seven fraternity Chapter houses were listed by Cal Poly in its AB 524 Report. A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit 7. B. Assembly Bill 524: The Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act 46. In February 2021, AB 524 (Education Code § 66310 et seq) was introduced with the aim to increase transparency between campus-affiliated Greek organizations and the public. The legislation requires that all colleges and universities in California report various information - 15 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 regarding their sorority and fraternity organizations and members by posting the information “in a prominent location on the college’s Greek Life homepage on or before October 1, 2023, and annually thereafter.” The information is required to be archived and available to the public for a minimum of 10 years. 47. During the third reading of the Assembly Bill in the Senate on June 14, 2022, the Senate acknowledged the privacy laws under FERPA, and found that the disclosure of the location, date, and time of sanctioned events does not violate FERPA. On the passing of the Assembly Bill on August 15, 2022, it was specifically noted, "AB 524 will achieve transparency while respecting students' right to privacy as provided by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act by only providing non-identifiable information. These common-sense provisions strengthen public safety of higher education communities." AB 524 was approved unanimously by the California Senate and signed by the governor on Sept. 13, 2022. 48. AB 524 states “…each institution of higher education shall include in the institution’s requirements for campus recognition of each campus-recognized sorority or fraternity, both of the following requirements: (1) (A) A requirement that the campus-recognized sorority or fraternity shall submit to the institution on or before July 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, all of the following: … (x) The location, date, and time of any sanctioned event. (2) A requirement that any campus-recognized sorority or fraternity that does not comply with paragraph (1) be suspended from campus recognition.” Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A)(x)(2).” - 16 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 49. California State University (“CSU”) created a template for its school campus locations to prepare AB 524 reports to streamline the reporting process for compliance with the requirements of AB 524. A true and correct copy of the CSU Template is attached as Exhibit #8. 50. The template includes a section titled “Sanctioned Events Status” with subheadings that: “Includes any disciplinary actions” and “Meets Bill Requirements (x) & (3)(A,B)”. There are columns with titles for the following information to be filled in: • “Chapter (alpha order)” • “Date” • “Time” • “Event Name” • “Address (On and Off-campus)” (emphasis added) • “If disciplinary action occurred against the Chapter. Please indicate total number of disciplinary actions against the organization” 51. On or about October 1, 2023, Cal Poly published its AB 524 report on its Greek Life website. On the page titled “Sanctioned Events Status”, Cal Poly did not fill in the information directly on the template form but provided hyperlinks to corresponding spreadsheets for each sorority and fraternity. Each spreadsheet included the dates, times, and address locations of sanctioned events held by the Greek organizations for the previous academic year, September 2022 – June 2023. A true and correct copy of Cal Poly’s “Sanctioned Events Status” page for their AB 524 report is attached as Exhibit 9. 52. On or about November 8, 2024, the San Luis Obispo Community Development Department and Code Enforcement (“Code Enforcement”) became aware of Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report and the information related to the locations of sanctioned events held by Cal Poly’s sororities and fraternities. Many of the sanctioned events listed in Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report were at houses in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo, which is prohibited by the SLOMC and Zoning Regulations. - 17 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 53. Subsequently, the City of San Luis Obispo, including Code Enforcement Supervisor, John Mezzapesa and his staff, reached out to Cal Poly’s Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life, Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola, to discuss the SLOMC and Zoning Regulations related to the operations of Cal Poly’s sororities and fraternities. 54. Upon information and belief, Mr. Mezzapesa met with Cal Poly staff and members of Cal Poly’s fraternities and sororities to explain that the SLOMC and Zoning Regulations prohibit fraternity operations in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods and that fraternities must obtain a conditional use permit for operations, which are only allowed in R-3 or R-4 zones. 55. Upon information and belief, in spring of 2024, Code Enforcement began sending Notices of Violation and Advisory Letters to properties for illegal fraternity operations, citing a violation of the SLOMC and Zoning Ordinance. Code Enforcement continued to investigate illegal fraternity operations and send additional Notices of Violation and/or Advisory Letters to properties with confirmed illegal fraternity operations and/or illegal fraternity events. 56. Upon information and belief, some property owners and property management companies contacted Code Enforcement and/or Cal Poly about the alleged fraternity operations after they received the Notices of Violation and/or Advisory Letters from the City of San Luis Obispo. Some property owners claimed they did not know that their property was considered a fraternity house and/or did not want their property to be associated as a fraternity house. 57. Upon information and belief, Cal Poly staff notified the City of San Luis Obispo staff, including Code Enforcement, that Cal Poly will no longer keep track of its satellite fraternity houses or share that information with the City. The main Chapter houses for many of Cal Poly’s fraternities are considered satellite fraternity houses because they are not permitted, even though they operate as - 18 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 full-fledged fraternity houses. Many satellite fraternities also host fraternity-related events and parties and operate as full-fledged fraternities. 58. On or about early July 2024, Cal Poly edited its AB 524 report, “Sanctioned Events Status” page, and removed the addresses of sanctioned events held by its sororities and fraternities under the “Address (On and Off-campus)” column. Cal Poly replaced the addresses of the events with “San Luis Obispo”. A true and correct copy of the before and after reports for three Cal Poly fraternities is attached as Exhibit #10. C. Petitioner Continued to Request Records Pursuant to the CPRA 59. On or about July 22, 2024, Petitioner requested copies of the following public records pursuant to the CPRA: “1. A list of every satellite fraternity house for Cal Poly's fraternities with their address and fraternity affiliation, from 8/1/2020 to the present date, 7/22/2024. 2. A list of sanctioned events held by each Cal Poly fraternity and sorority from 7/1/2023 to 7/1/2024, including the date, time, and address of each event, a description and purpose of the event, the expected number of guests, and risk management policy for each event. Cal Poly's Party Registration Policy and Guidelines ("Cal Poly's policy") for fraternities and sororities require "All off-campus parties must be held at either the chapter facility, registered satellite house, or a contracted third-party venue." It defines a satellite house as "any residence where a majority of occupants are members for the purpose of this policy." Cal Poly's policy also requires that fraternities and sororities register their parties with the Greek Life office for review by the Coordinators of Fraternity and Sorority Life. The information provided to Cal Poly by each fraternity and sorority includes the chapter(s) hosting the event, the date and time, the location, the description and purpose of the party, the expected number of guests, and the risk management policy, etc. I am not requesting any information identifying any particular student, such as a point of contact or invited parties.” A true and correct copy of the request is attached as Exhibit #11. 60. On or about August 1, 2024, Records Access Officer, Maren Hufton responded to Petitioner’s request on behalf of the Respondents by a written message that stated: - 19 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “As to Request #1, Cal Poly has reviewed your request for records under Government Code §7922.535 and has determined that the records you seek are not public records and therefore are not subject to the California Public Records Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §7920.530).” The message contained new information, not included in Respondents’ previous messages: “It should also be noted that Cal Poly does not possess a “list of satellite fraternity house addresses” and it is not obligated to create such a document to respond to a public records request.” . . . “Furthermore, Cal Poly no longer recognizes fraternity or sorority “satellite houses”, therefore such information is no longer collected by the University.” 61. Contained in the same written message on or about August 1, 2024, related to Petitioner’s Request #2, Respondents stated that “no single existing record or file meets the criteria of your request” but that some of the requested information “may be able to be extracted” for which Petitioner must bear the full cost, and it would be calculated based on the programmer’s hourly rate including benefits. Respondents continued to claim the same exemptions in previous messages without any context about how they relate to Petitioner’s request. The exemptions were listed as follows: • “Materials that reflect student education records or may violate student privacy. Cal. Govt. Code §§7927.705, 7922.000; 21 U.S.C. §1232g. • General Privacy Rights. Cal. Govt. Code §7927.705; Cal. Const. Art. 1, §1.2 • Records where the public interest against disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Cal. Govt. Code §7922.000.” Respondents suggested that Petitioner wait until Cal Poly publishes their AB 524 Report on October 1, 2024, which would contain “some of the information” requested but noted “that the location of a sanctioned event must be held at a chapter house or at a 3rd party venue.” This seemed to indicate Cal Poly’s Policy Article II (A) was altered to remove “registered satellite houses”. It’s unclear whether Cal Poly would include sanctioned events at satellite houses that were had been registered with Cal Poly’s Greek Life office and held during the 2023 – 2024 academic year in its AB 524 Report to be filed on or before October 1, 2024. A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit #12. - 20 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 62. During an amendment of AB 524 in the Senate on May 23, 2022, the wording of Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A) changed from requiring that the institution collect from the sorority or fraternity to requiring that the sorority or fraternity submit to the institution the information described under Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A) on or before July 1, 2023 and annually thereafter. Failure to do so requires that the sorority or fraternity be suspended from campus recognition. Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(2). Based on the requirement that each sorority and fraternity at Cal Poly submit to Cal Poly, the date, time and location of any sanctioned event held during the previous academic year (August 2023 – June 2024) on or before July 1, 2024, the Respondents should be in possession of the information requested by Petitioner in the form of a list or documentation provided by its fraternities pursuant to Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A). 63. On or about August 1, 2024, Petitioner requested copies of the following public records pursuant to the CPRA: “a list of sanctioned events held by each Cal Poly fraternity in the Interfraternity Council from 7/1/2023 to 6/30/2024, including the date, time, and address of each event.” Petitioner cited the requirement outlined in Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A). that mandates each fraternity submit the information to Cal Poly on or before July 1, 2024, by uploading a list or a spreadsheet of the sanctioned events. Therefore, the information could easily be provided to the Petitioner in a timely manner without any specialized research. Petitioner noted, “The academic year is starting soon, and time is of the essence. If Cal Poly refuses to provide the information I have requested, I will have no choice but to seek relief from the Court to compel disclosure, including attorney fees and costs.” A true and correct copy of the request is attached as Exhibit #13. 64. On or about August 12, 2024, Records Access Officer, Maren Hufton responded to Petitioner’s request on behalf of the Respondents by a written message that stated Cal Poly “has determined that your request, either in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records”. - 21 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The message contends that fraternities do not provide the university with a comprehensive list of their sanctioned events, that the events are reported when they register for events individually through Cal Poly’s “event registration system”. “It is from this system/database that the reportable sanctioned event information is extracted for the annual AB 524 Report.” The message stated that the process to extract and redact those records would take time but did not provide an estimated date or time frame. Furthermore, Respondents indicated “most of the records will be subject to exemptions…” and included a list of exemptions, as follows: • “Materials that reflect student education records or may violate student privacy. Cal. Govt. Code §§7927.705, 7922.000; 21 U.S.C. §1232g. • General Privacy Rights. Cal. Govt. Code §7927.705; Cal. Const. Art. 1, §1. • Records where the public interest against disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Cal. Govt. Code §7922.000.” The message made clear that Respondents would not release the addresses in the records sought by Petitioner. A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit #14. 65. It has been over 11 months since Petitioner first requested records pursuant to the CPRA, and Respondents have continued to refuse to produce that the addresses of Cal Poly’s satellite fraternity houses, including main Chapter houses not owned by the fraternity corporation, and the addresses where fraternities have held sanctioned events. Respondents have violated the CPRA by wrongfully refusing to produce the requested records. SUMMARY OF LEGAL AUTHORITY 66. The California Constitution and CPRA require state and local agencies to make any public record available for inspection or copying upon request unless the record falls within a specific exemption from disclosure. Cal. Const., art. I § 3(b)(1), (b)(7); §§ 7922.000, 7922.525, 7922.530. - 22 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 67. “‘Public records’ includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” § 7920.530(a). 68. “Nothing in” the CPRA “shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records,” and an agency “shall make the records promptly available.” §§ 7922.500, 7922.530(a). 69. The CPRA provides that when it is shown that public records are being improperly withheld, “the court shall order the officer or other person charged with withholding the records to disclose those records or show cause why that person should not do so.” § 7923.100. 70. According to the CPRA, “If the court finds that the public official’s decision to refuse disclosure is not justified . . . the court shall order the public official to make the record public.” § 7923.110(a). 71. There is no exemption generally applicable to the records requested by Petitioner, and Respondents have no right to continue withholding them. 72. The CPRA further imposes on local agencies a “duty to assist” any member of public who makes a records request, such that an agency “shall do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances”: 1) Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated. 2) Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist. 3) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought. § 7922.600(a). 73. Respondents did not assist Petitioner “to identify records and information that are responsive to the request,” “describe the information technology and physical location in which the - 23 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 record exists” or provide “suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.” See § 7922.600(a). 74. Petitioner has performed all conditions preceding the filing of this action and exhausted all remedies to obtain access to the public records requested from Respondents. 75. Petitioner seeks attorney fees and court costs as required by the CPRA. See § 7923.115(a). 76. Respondents’ violations of law set forth above will continue unless and until they are commanded by this Court to produce the public records requested and to not engage in such further violations of law by a declaratory judgment finding their conduct unlawful. Additionally, absent injunctive relief, Respondents will continue to withhold public information as they have done here, resulting in great injury to Petitioner and the public at large by depriving them of immediate access to information vital to the public interest. 77. Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law because the relief she seeks does not consist of monetary compensation but rather the enforcement of her statutory and constitutional rights of access, and the harm she has suffered through Respondents’ refusal to provide access to information that is required to be disclosed under California law cannot be compensated through an award of monetary damages. CAUSE OF ACTION For Violations of the California Public Records Act and Article I, § 3 of the California Constitution (Against All Respondents) 78. Petitioner realleges and incorporates by this reference Paragraphs 1 through 77 above as though set forth herein in full. 79. Petitioner’s requests describe public records as defined by the CPRA. - 24 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 80. Respondents violated and continue to violate the CPRA and Article I, Section 3(b) of the California Constitution by improperly withholding records responsive to those requests for 11 months and counting. 81. Respondents have failed to and continue to fail to demonstrate that the public records requested by Petitioner qualify for any exemption from disclosure or any authorized delay in disclosure. 82. Respondents have repeatedly violated and continue to violate the CPRA’s mandate that agencies “shall make [public] records promptly available,” § 7922.530(a), and that agencies may not “delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records,” § 7922.500. 83. Respondents failed to assist Petitioner “to identify records and information that are responsive to the request,” “describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist,” and/or to provide “suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.” § 7922.600(a). 84. An actual controversy exists as to whether the public records requested by Petitioner must be immediately disclosed. 85. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to obtain the public records she has requested, other than this Petition. Petitioner is entitled to institute proceedings for a writ of mandate and for declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce her rights and the public’s rights to obtain records responsive to Petitioner’s requests. Furthermore, Petitioner is entitled to have the proceedings resolved on an expedited basis consistent “with the object of securing a decision to these matters at the earliest possible time.” § 7923.005. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Petitioner prays as follows: - 25 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. For a writ of mandate and injunction ordering Respondents to provide all records responsive to Petitioner’s CPRA requests as set forth above; 2. Alternatively, if the Court does not immediately order production of the records requested, that it order Respondents to show cause why the records should not be released and to prepare a log of withheld records, and that it thereafter issue a writ of mandate and injunction ordering the requested records to be disclosed; 3. For an order granting declaratory and injunctive relief, including, but not limited to: a) Declaring that the withheld materials are public records as defined by section 7920.530, subdivision (a) in that they contain information relating to the conduct of the people’s business, prepared, owned, used, or retained by Respondents and are subject to disclosure; b) Declaring that Respondents violated the CPRA by denying the public records request and failing to promptly make the requested records available to Petitioner and the public, and; c) Declaring that Respondents violated the CPRA by failing to state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available within 10 days of receiving the requests; d) Declaring that Respondents violated the CPRA by failing to assist Petitioner (1) to identify records and information that are responsive to the request, (2) by describing the information technology and physical location in which the records exist, and/or (3) by providing suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought; e) Enjoining Respondents to provide the requested records; - 26 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. For a finding and determination that Petitioner is the prevailing party in this action; 5. For an award of attorney fees and costs to Petitioner pursuant to section 7923.115, subdivision (a) or any other applicable law; 6. For judgment accordingly; and 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: 1 From:Marx, Jan Sent:Sunday, July 6, 2025 5:38 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Tassajara/Ramona Neighborhood / Please Act to Protect All Neighborhoods Thank you for all you do to highlight this important issue, Kathie Jan From: kathie walker < Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:45 PM To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Tassajara/Ramona Neighborhood / Please Act to Protect All Neighborhoods Dear City Councilmembers, The quality of life issues related to illegal fraternity operations have gravely affected the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods near campus. Over the past few years, the illegal fraternities have spread to other single-family residential neighborhoods further away, west of Santa Rosa Street, including Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF) and the Ramona/Tassajara neighborhood. It is probably not a coincidence that long- term residents/families are selling their homes and leaving the neighborhood. One family on Ramona Drive complained about an illegal fraternity behind them at 311 Foothill Blvd, which was identified in Cal Poly's AB 524 report as holding fraternity events. The property owner received a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations at 311 Foothill, but the noise from the fraternity continued. Last year, that family on Ramona Drive sold their home and moved away because the noise in the neighborhood was too much to take. A different family living on S. Tassajara reached out to RQN last year because Pi Kappa Phi is operating behind/diagonal from their home at 66 S. Rafael, and constant noise and disruptive fraternity events for several years have made their lives miserable. The family on S. Tassajara and the historic architectural renovation of their home were featured in SLO Life Magazine in early 2019, before the fraternity moved in behind them. Here is a link to the article, "As One", pages 54 - 62 https://issuu.com/slolifemagazine/docs/slolifefebmar2019lr. Even before the residents on S. Tassajara contacted RQN, I sent documentation to the City that showed Pi Kappa Phi was illegally operating at 66 S. Rafael, with social media posts that advertised fraternity-related events specifically at 66 S. Rafael since Fall 2022. The City did not take any action. Pi Kappa Phi is still operating at that address, including rush events during the 2024-2025 school year that were documented with video, with large Greek letters in their driveway during the event. I have continued to send documentation of fraternity events advertised on social media to the City without any resolution. There is also a significant history of noise complaints for 66 S. Rafael. Last week, a house occupied by a family was listed for sale at 53 S. Rafael, shown below in the black box. This house is across the street diagonally from Pi Kappa Psi's illegal fraternity house at 66 Rafael (red box, middle). Last year, another fraternity moved in directly behind 53 Rafael at 311 Del Mar Court (red box, far left) and has held fraternity-related events there. Another fraternity, Phi Gamma Delta or FIJI, is operating illegally, a block away at 451 Ramona Drive (red box, far right). 2 When fraternities illegally operate in neighborhoods, it starts with one or two. If the City doesn't stop them, more move into the neighborhood because there is an implicit message that it's okay, because other fraternities are also operating nearby. That's how the Alta Vista neighborhood became overrun with dozens of illegal fraternities, and Albert Drive has become the new Greek Row. Fraternity operations are not compatible with the lifestyle of families living in a residential neighborhood, and they are moving away. "Families" is defined broadly, including all sorts of groups who would traditionally live in a neighborhood with the expectation that they are not living next to or within earshot of a fraternity house, which is the equivalent of a downtown bar & nightclub moving into the neighborhood. There are constant disruptions from extremely noisy parties, increased traffic of 100+ loud, often intoxicated guests coming and going, vandalism, and other nuisances such as trespassing, vomiting, and using private yards as a toilet. The City, in its response to the Grand Jury on 6/20/2025, cited repeated attempts to work with Cal Poly to gain compliance, including the efforts listed below, which have not worked. I have included some additional items, in italics, for context:  January 10, 2024: City staff met with Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the complaints received regarding Fraternities and Sororities.  April 10, 2024: Follow-up meeting with Assistant Director of Fraternity & Sorority Life regarding the City's response to unpermitted Fraternities.  April 16, 2024: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities.  July 2024: Cal Poly edited its online AB 524 Reports and erased the addresses of all fraternity events for the 2023-2024 academic year. 3  August 2024: Community Development Director met with Cal Poly leadership to discuss the issue of Fraternities/Sororities and land use requirements for houses.  October 2024: Fraternities held fraternity rush events at their illegal fraternity house locations in R1/R2 neighborhoods, and the dates, times, and addresses of some of those illegal fraternity events were sent to the City, copied at the bottom of this email. The fraternities continued to hold fraternity parties and other events at their illegal fraternity houses throughout the academic year, and not a single fraternity ceased operations .  January 12, 2025: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities.  January 17 - 26, 2025: Fraternities ignored the City's presentation and held fraternity rush events at their illegal fraternity house locations in R1/R2 neighborhoods. Code Enforcement staff responded to addresses holding rush events, but when they approached some fraternity members at a check-in table with laptops in the front yard, the fraternity members denied that they were holding a rush event. Code Enforcement staff noted they were wearing shirts with Greek letters. Almost immediately, the fraternity members alerted other members at illegal fraternity houses in the neighborhood, which prompted other fraternities to move their check-in tables and laptops behind their fences. They then refused to answer the door to City staff, who heard the events in the backyards but did not cite them.  March 4, 2025: Meeting with City staff and Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the ongoing issues regarding Fraternities and Sororities and the upcoming "St. Fratty's Day" event. Cal Poly leadership and fraternities have ignored the City and have shown that they are not going to cooperate to solve this problem. The Grand Jury made clear that the City has not enforced its zoning ordinances and municipal codes, and ver 50 illegal fraternities have continued to operate illegally. Even more have been established in the neighborhoods over the past two years. In January 2025, I wrote to the City, including Christine Dietrick, and sent information about a case about 30 years ago when the City of SLO prosecuted a fraternity for operating without a use permit. I wanted Ms. Dietrick to use the same strategy to bring the most egregious violators into compliance. Nothing ever happened. In case you believe the situation is exaggerated because we are older residents, I encourage you to read the correspondence and listen to the 6/25/2025 testimony to the Planning Commission from younger residents near the Delta Upsilon fraternity house at 720 Foothill Blvd. A young property manager representing 28 residents of an apartment (1/3 college students and 2/3 working adults), and another young resident living nearby, spoke about the non-stop disruptive noise, lack of cooperation, and property damage they have dealt with from the fraternity members and their guests. They described what we live with constantly during the academic year. The difference is that Delta Upsilon was permitted and is only one fraternity house, while our neighborhood has over 30 illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternities. We are literally surrounded by numerous illegal fraternities, and cannot rest or sleep on weekends during the academic year. We have relied on you to solve the problem. I've been sending videos since Fall 2021, and the situation has not improved! Below is a link to some testimony from younger folks at the Planning Commission hearing on June 25, 2025: Planning Commission 6_25_2025 testimony.mp4 The constant stress and lack of sleep are EXTREMELY taxing on the mental and physical well-being of those living near the illegal fraternities. The younger folks who testified in the link above, confirmed the constant noise 4 "is far more than an annoyance. It's a violaiton of their quiet enjoyment, and directly affects their health, well- being and livihood." It is devastating to the health and welfare of those living nearby! You are our elected representatives and have the authority to direct the City Attorney to get the addresses from Cal Poly by filing a Writ of Mandamus with the SLO Superior Court. I am asking you to please do that. With the addresses, the City can bring the property owners into compliance with the law to restore our neighborhoods so people, including college students, can rest and sleep. Please ask the City Manager and City Attorney to take the necessary steps to get the addresses and solve this enormous problem that is worsening each year. In 2024, I prepared a draft Writ of Mandate and Points and Authorities Memorandum to compel Cal Poly to publish the addresses of its illegal fraternities. I am a paralegal and not a lawyer, plus I have not practiced for a long time, so the draft is not great, but it gives you an important timeline of events and history related to Cal Poly's fraternities. (Attached) Cal Poly's responses to my public records requests changed after each request I made, with a different excuse, and they never provided any information. The City can compel the release of the addresses by filing a Writ or similar action. Please take meaningful action to identify the illegal fraternities on file with Cal Poly's Greek Life office, and stop the illegal fraternity operations to restore our neighborhoods for the health and welfare of many residents impacted by illegal fraternities. Thank you, Kathie Walker Fall Rush Events at Illegal Fraternity Houses (The list only includes those that were documented.) Friday 10/4/2024: 1684-1688 Mill Street -R2 (Delta Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 281 Albert Drive -R1 (Delta Upsilon) MAIN SATELLITE HOUSE – It has a permitted house at 720 E. Foothill Blvd 248-250 Grand Ave -R1 (Theta Chi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE WITH 1844 MCCOLLUM (Shared Yards) 281 Hathway Ave -R1 (Kappa Sigma) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 348-350 Hathway Ave - R2 (Phi Sigma Kappa) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1525 Slack St -R1 (Sigma Pi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 2090 Hays - R1 (Sigma Epsilon) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1218-1220 Bond St - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1229 Fredericks - R1 (Phi Gamma Delta aka FIJI) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 654 & 658 Graves -R4 (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE Saturday 10/5/2024: 654 & 658 Graves -R4 (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 299 Albert - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) 12 Hathway - R1 (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1841 Slack St - R1 (Sigma Nu) 66 Rafael - R1 (Pi Kappa Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE IN THE CITY 1820 Hope - R1 (Theta Chi) Main Chapter House last year 2023-2024 322 Hathway - R2 (Kappa Sigma) 1908 Loomis - R1 (Phi Sigma Kappa) 1276 Bond St - R1 (Phi Kappa Psi) 589 Cuesta Drive - R1 (Delta Sigma Phi) 1555 Slack St - R1 (Sigma Pi) Sunday 10/6/2024 237 Albert Dr - R1 (Phi Kappa Psi) 124 Stenner - R4 (Sigma Pi) 171 Orange - R1 (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1646 Fredericks St - R1 (Zeta Beta Tau) 1868 Loomis -R1 (Delta Upsilon) 260 Chaplin - R1 (Phi Delta Theta) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 5 1632 Fredericks - R1 (Sigma Nu) 255 Chaplin - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) 1 From:CityClerk Sent:Monday, July 7, 2025 5:00 PM To:kathie walker Subject:cc Walker - Tassajara/Ramona Neighborhood / Please Act to Protect All Neighborhoods BCC: Council All Kathie Walker, Thank you for taking the time to contact City Council on this topic. This is a policy related issue for the City Council’s consideration and your message has been provided directly to them. City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 From: kathie walker < Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:45 PM To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Tassajara/Ramona Neighborhood / Please Act to Protect All Neighborhoods Dear City Councilmembers, The quality of life issues related to illegal fraternity operations have gravely affected the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods near campus. Over the past few years, the illegal fraternities have spread to other single-family residential neighborhoods further away, west of Santa Rosa Street, including Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF) and the Ramona/Tassajara neighborhood. It is probably not a coincidence that long- term residents/families are selling their homes and leaving the neighborhood. One family on Ramona Drive complained about an illegal fraternity behind them at 311 Foothill Blvd, which was identified in Cal Poly's AB 524 report as holding fraternity events. The property owner received a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations at 311 Foothill, but the noise from the fraternity continued. Last year, that family on Ramona Drive sold their home and moved away because the noise in the neighborhood was too much to take. A different family living on S. Tassajara reached out to RQN last year because Pi Kappa Phi is operating behind/diagonal from their home at 66 S. Rafael, and constant noise and disruptive fraternity events for several years have made their lives miserable. The family on S. Tassajara and the historic architectural renovation of 2 their home were featured in SLO Life Magazine in early 2019, before the fraternity moved in behind them. Here is a link to the article, "As One", pages 54 - 62 https://issuu.com/slolifemagazine/docs/slolifefebmar2019lr. Even before the residents on S. Tassajara contacted RQN, I sent documentation to the City that showed Pi Kappa Phi was illegally operating at 66 S. Rafael, with social media posts that advertised fraternity-related events specifically at 66 S. Rafael since Fall 2022. The City did not take any action. Pi Kappa Phi is still operating at that address, including rush events during the 2024-2025 school year that were documented with video, with large Greek letters in their driveway during the event. I have continued to send documentation of fraternity events advertised on social media to the City without any resolution. There is also a significant history of noise complaints for 66 S. Rafael. Last week, a house occupied by a family was listed for sale at 53 S. Rafael, shown below in the black box. This house is across the street diagonally from Pi Kappa Psi's illegal fraternity house at 66 Rafael (red box, middle). Last year, another fraternity moved in directly behind 53 Rafael at 311 Del Mar Court (red box, far left) and has held fraternity-related events there. Another fraternity, Phi Gamma Delta or FIJI, is operating illegally, a block away at 451 Ramona Drive (red box, far right). When fraternities illegally operate in neighborhoods, it starts with one or two. If the City doesn't stop them, more move into the neighborhood because there is an implicit message that it's okay, because other fraternities are also operating nearby. That's how the Alta Vista neighborhood became overrun with dozens of illegal fraternities, and Albert Drive has become the new Greek Row. Fraternity operations are not compatible with the lifestyle of families living in a residential neighborhood, and they are moving away. "Families" is defined broadly, including all sorts of groups who would traditionally live in a neighborhood with the expectation that they are not living next to or within earshot of a fraternity house, which is the equivalent of a downtown bar & nightclub moving into the neighborhood. There are constant disruptions from extremely noisy parties, increased traffic of 100+ loud, often intoxicated guests coming and going, vandalism, and other nuisances such as trespassing, vomiting, and using private yards as a toilet. 3 The City, in its response to the Grand Jury on 6/20/2025, cited repeated attempts to work with Cal Poly to gain compliance, including the efforts listed below, which have not worked. I have included some additional items, in italics, for context:  January 10, 2024: City staff met with Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the complaints received regarding Fraternities and Sororities.  April 10, 2024: Follow-up meeting with Assistant Director of Fraternity & Sorority Life regarding the City's response to unpermitted Fraternities.  April 16, 2024: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities.  July 2024: Cal Poly edited its online AB 524 Reports and erased the addresses of all fraternity events for the 2023-2024 academic year.  August 2024: Community Development Director met with Cal Poly leadership to discuss the issue of Fraternities/Sororities and land use requirements for houses.  October 2024: Fraternities held fraternity rush events at their illegal fraternity house locations in R1/R2 neighborhoods, and the dates, times, and addresses of some of those illegal fraternity events were sent to the City, copied at the bottom of this email. The fraternities continued to hold fraternity parties and other events at their illegal fraternity houses throughout the academic year, and not a single fraternity ceased operations .  January 12, 2025: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities.  January 17 - 26, 2025: Fraternities ignored the City's presentation and held fraternity rush events at their illegal fraternity house locations in R1/R2 neighborhoods. Code Enforcement staff responded to addresses holding rush events, but when they approached some fraternity members at a check-in table with laptops in the front yard, the fraternity members denied that they were holding a rush event. Code Enforcement staff noted they were wearing shirts with Greek letters. Almost immediately, the fraternity members alerted other members at illegal fraternity houses in the neighborhood, which prompted other fraternities to move their check-in tables and laptops behind their fences. They then refused to answer the door to City staff, who heard the events in the backyards but did not cite them.  March 4, 2025: Meeting with City staff and Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the ongoing issues regarding Fraternities and Sororities and the upcoming "St. Fratty's Day" event. Cal Poly leadership and fraternities have ignored the City and have shown that they are not going to cooperate to solve this problem. The Grand Jury made clear that the City has not enforced its zoning ordinances and municipal codes, and ver 50 illegal fraternities have continued to operate illegally. Even more have been established in the neighborhoods over the past two years. In January 2025, I wrote to the City, including Christine Dietrick, and sent information about a case about 30 years ago when the City of SLO prosecuted a fraternity for operating without a use permit. I wanted Ms. Dietrick to use the same strategy to bring the most egregious violators into compliance. Nothing ever happened. In case you believe the situation is exaggerated because we are older residents, I encourage you to read the correspondence and listen to the 6/25/2025 testimony to the Planning Commission from younger residents near 4 the Delta Upsilon fraternity house at 720 Foothill Blvd. A young property manager representing 28 residents of an apartment (1/3 college students and 2/3 working adults), and another young resident living nearby, spoke about the non-stop disruptive noise, lack of cooperation, and property damage they have dealt with from the fraternity members and their guests. They described what we live with constantly during the academic year. The difference is that Delta Upsilon was permitted and is only one fraternity house, while our neighborhood has over 30 illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternities. We are literally surrounded by numerous illegal fraternities, and cannot rest or sleep on weekends during the academic year. We have relied on you to solve the problem. I've been sending videos since Fall 2021, and the situation has not improved! Below is a link to some testimony from younger folks at the Planning Commission hearing on June 25, 2025: Planning Commission 6_25_2025 testimony.mp4 The constant stress and lack of sleep are EXTREMELY taxing on the mental and physical well-being of those living near the illegal fraternities. The younger folks who testified in the link above, confirmed the constant noise "is far more than an annoyance. It's a violaiton of their quiet enjoyment, and directly affects their health, well- being and livihood." It is devastating to the health and welfare of those living nearby! You are our elected representatives and have the authority to direct the City Attorney to get the addresses from Cal Poly by filing a Writ of Mandamus with the SLO Superior Court. I am asking you to please do that. With the addresses, the City can bring the property owners into compliance with the law to restore our neighborhoods so people, including college students, can rest and sleep. Please ask the City Manager and City Attorney to take the necessary steps to get the addresses and solve this enormous problem that is worsening each year. In 2024, I prepared a draft Writ of Mandate and Points and Authorities Memorandum to compel Cal Poly to publish the addresses of its illegal fraternities. I am a paralegal and not a lawyer, plus I have not practiced for a long time, so the draft is not great, but it gives you an important timeline of events and history related to Cal Poly's fraternities. (Attached) Cal Poly's responses to my public records requests changed after each request I made, with a different excuse, and they never provided any information. The City can compel the release of the addresses by filing a Writ or similar action. Please take meaningful action to identify the illegal fraternities on file with Cal Poly's Greek Life office, and stop the illegal fraternity operations to restore our neighborhoods for the health and welfare of many residents impacted by illegal fraternities. Thank you, Kathie Walker Fall Rush Events at Illegal Fraternity Houses (The list only includes those that were documented.) Friday 10/4/2024: 1684-1688 Mill Street -R2 (Delta Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 281 Albert Drive -R1 (Delta Upsilon) MAIN SATELLITE HOUSE – It has a permitted house at 720 E. Foothill Blvd 248-250 Grand Ave -R1 (Theta Chi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE WITH 1844 MCCOLLUM (Shared Yards) 281 Hathway Ave -R1 (Kappa Sigma) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 348-350 Hathway Ave - R2 (Phi Sigma Kappa) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1525 Slack St -R1 (Sigma Pi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 2090 Hays - R1 (Sigma Epsilon) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1218-1220 Bond St - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1229 Fredericks - R1 (Phi Gamma Delta aka FIJI) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 654 & 658 Graves -R4 (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE Saturday 10/5/2024: 654 & 658 Graves -R4 (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 5 299 Albert - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) 12 Hathway - R1 (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1841 Slack St - R1 (Sigma Nu) 66 Rafael - R1 (Pi Kappa Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE IN THE CITY 1820 Hope - R1 (Theta Chi) Main Chapter House last year 2023-2024 322 Hathway - R2 (Kappa Sigma) 1908 Loomis - R1 (Phi Sigma Kappa) 1276 Bond St - R1 (Phi Kappa Psi) 589 Cuesta Drive - R1 (Delta Sigma Phi) 1555 Slack St - R1 (Sigma Pi) Sunday 10/6/2024 237 Albert Dr - R1 (Phi Kappa Psi) 124 Stenner - R4 (Sigma Pi) 171 Orange - R1 (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1646 Fredericks St - R1 (Zeta Beta Tau) 1868 Loomis -R1 (Delta Upsilon) 260 Chaplin - R1 (Phi Delta Theta) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1632 Fredericks - R1 (Sigma Nu) 255 Chaplin - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Thursday, July 10, 2025 8:04 PM To:Marx, Jan; Francis, Emily; Stewart, Erica A; Boswell, Mike; Shoresman, Michelle; E-mail Council Website Subject:SCLC: Purpose and Parity Attachments:Legislative edit SCLC MOU Fall 2023.pdf Dear City Councilmembers, The Agenda item 8a for the meeting on July 15, 2025, has some "Background" that lists some "approaches by the City that have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings," and it lists the SCLC meetings as one of the approaches. I want to address some of the items on the list separately, starting with the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC). Considering the SCLC is referenced in the City’s response to the Grand Jury and the Agenda as one of the resources to help solve neighborhood issues, there is value in the historical context of SCLC and the relatively recent evolution. Here are some of the important developments to consider: The SCLC was formed in 1987 “to address issues regarding the community and Cal Poly students,” according to its original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Cuesta College was included in 1988. The original purpose and “mission statement” of the committee were to address issues regarding the community and college students. However, portions of the MOU were recently revised by Police Chief Rick Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford, as covered in greater detail below. The Legislative edits showing the MOU before and after it was edited is attache d to this email. History of Neighborhood Representatives on the SCLC The previous MOU, before it was revised, listed members of SCLC from Cal Poly, Cuesta, the City of San Luis Obispo, the 5 th District Supervisor and community members including one seat for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) and two seats for other residents which are to be appointed by the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations ”. The “Resident Organizations” referred to organized neighborhoods such as Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Monterey Heights Neighborhood Association (MHNA), and Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF). Those two additional seats for residents impacted by college students in their neighborhood were added in 2016, based on the recommendation of the city council after the Civility-Neighborhood Wellness Report was presented to the council in 2015. Christine Wallace of SLOPD made the presentation. She was then the Neighborhood Outreach Manager and is now the Police Public Affairs Manager and is a voting member of the SCLC. The SCLC updated their MOU in January 2019 to read: “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations shall: Appoint one member from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods; Appoint one member to represent Geographic Neighborhood Association; and Appoint one community member-at-large...” The voting members on SCLC are mostly associated with Cal Poly and Cuesta College. The expansion of two residents' seats on SCLC was to give parity to those residents who are impacted by college students living in the neighborhoods, and to support one 2 another to bring issues forward to be addressed during committee meetings, as stated by the City Council when the SCLC was expanded to include the two additional seats. Some seats were vacant following inconsistent SCLC meetings during the COVID-19 shutdown, including the two resident seats appointed by the Resident Organizations. The two seats were not formally listed as vacant until the SCLC meeting in January 2023. At the SCLC meeting in March 2023, the Resident Organizations brought forward two residents for appointments to the two seats, as is their right per the MOU at that time: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, who lives in the Neighborhoods North of Foothill geographic area, and Lydia Mourenza who has advocated for neighborhood wellness and also lives in the northern part of the city. During the same meeting, San Luis Obispo mayor Erica Stewart recommended that Abe Lincoln be appointed to one of the resident seats, although Mr. Lincoln is not affiliated with the Resident Organizations and was not recommended by them. Mr. Lincoln lives in the Arbors development, which is not affected by issues such as noisy parties and disturbances by college-aged students, and he had never advocated on behalf of any neighborhood association related to neighborhood wellness or the adverse impact of college students in their neighborhood. Mr. Lincoln’s neighborhood has an HOA that prevents the sort of disturbances experienced by college student-impacted neighborhoods. During the March 2023 meeting, Mayor Stewart made a motion to appoint Abe Lincoln. Christine Wallace seconded the motion, and it was passed, which gave Mr. Lincoln one of the seats that were supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations according to SCLC's MOU. Although the Resident Organizations had two people at the meeting that they planned to appoint to the two seats, the SCLC rejected one of their appointments (Lydia Mourenza), contrary to the provisions of the MOU. Notably, Ms. Wallace gave the presentation of the Civility Report to the City Council in 2015, where all five council members recommended the expansion of SCLC by two seats, and each council member said that they should be residents who are concerned with the town gown relationship with the impacts by college students in their neighborhood. Ms. Wallace was also present at the SCLC meeting in January 2019, when the MOU was modified to give the power of appointment of the three “resident” seats to the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. In May 2023, Sandra Rowley went to the SCLC meeting to correct the mistake. She is the chair of RQN and is in communication with the chairs of Resident Organizations such as AVNA, NNOF, etc. Ms. Rowley read the terms of the MOU out loud and pointed out that Mr. Lincoln was illegally appointed to a seat that is supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations. She asked him to step down so the Resident Organizations could appoint their representative, according to the terms of the MOU. Mr. Lincoln refused and posted about the situation on his Facebook page, claiming he was “appointed” by the mayor, Erica Stewart, instead of them [RQN’s appointed person], and he had no intention to step down with the hashtag #smalltownpolitics. In the comments of his Facebook post, Mr. Lincoln criticized another Representative [RQN Board Member Brett Cross], saying: “in the two meetings I have attended a fair amount of time is spent by one individual complaining about the students. I am aiming to try to help change that tone.” And in another comment, he said, “I did mention bringing back Mardi Gras in my first meeting. Maybe that’s what caused the alarm *laughing emoji*” 3 Indeed, Mr. Lincoln has continued to criticize those who have brought up the problems related to noise from illegal fraternities during SCLC meetings and read a prepared statement condemning me and my husband, specifically calling out the website “How to Ruin a Neighborhood”. He has never engaged in any discussion about the noise and problems experienced by those living in the northern part of the city, and such issues were the original intent of the SCLC. The SCLC meetings were recorded so there is no confusion about what has been said during the meetings. When the city council discussed expanding SCLC in 2015, to include two additional seats for residents, they commented that it would be good for the lone community resident on SCLC at that time - the RQN representative – because the RQN representative would feel supported by the two additional residents impacted by college students who would fill the two new seats on the committee. Obviously, Mr. Lincoln’s criticism has not been supportive and is not consistent with the purpose of the seat he is occupying, especially according to the directives of the City Council in 2015. When Ms. Rowley pointed out SCLC’s failure to follow the MOU to appoint Lydia Mourenza to the then-City Manager, she was referred to the Police Chief to resolve the issue. There was some discussion between Ms. Rowley and Chief Scott about a resolution before the fall of 2023, and Chief Scott indicated there could be a resolution to allow a resident who lives in an impacted neighborhood to be appointed to SCLC. 4 However, when the matter was brought up by Ms. Rowley during the first SCLC meeting in August 2024, Chief Scott was silent on the matter, and it was not corrected. Then, Chief Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford revised the MOU to exclude the Resident Organizations’ ability to appoint representatives to the two “resident” seats. The edits eliminated the two seats appointed by the “Resident Organizations” and gave the power to SCLC to elect the residents that SCLC (mostly Cal Poly and City representatives) agree to. A Google doc shows the edits made by both Chief Scott and Ms. Crawford in the right hand column of the document. The revised MOU took away the appointed seats from the organized neighborhood groups who are most impacted by issues related to college students living in their neighborhood. Every other seat in SLCL is “provided” by the City, County, Cal Poly, or Cuesta, and some members are “appointed”, as listed in the MOU. None of those seats are elected by the SCLC. Now, under the terms of the rewritten MOU, the seats for residents are decided by a popularity contest for those who have connections with city leadership, like Mr. Lincoln who was brought forward by the mayor of SLO, even though his is not affili ated with any organized neighborhood group who works for neighborhood wellness related to the negative impacts of college student-issues. It seems that the original intent of SCLC has been pushed aside for a more political “public relations” type agenda. For example, the problem with the illegal fraternity operations within single-family neighborhoods was brought up by the RQN Representative and/or Geographical Neighborhood Representative during 2023-2024 and every SCLC meeting during 2024-2025 and was never put on the agenda or discussed. The situation today in 2025 is worse than it was in 2023, with more illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods than ever. Unless there is significant pushback from multiple SCLC members, Cal Poly does not engage in solving serious problems. For example, during the first meeting of the academic year in August 2024, the City Manager and others listed St. Fratty’s / St. Patrick’s Day as an important initiative to be discussed for the 2024-2025 academic year. During the next meeting in September 2024, the chair, Cal Poly ASI president Ashley Spragins, presented the list of initiatives for the year and it did not include St. Fratty's / St. Patrick's Day. Ms. McDonald pointed out that St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day was missing from the list of initiatives, and Ms. Spragins pulle d out a hard copy of the newer MOU and read the revised first sentence, "SCLC will serve as a mechanism of communication among Cal Poly, the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis Obispo community, to develop and strengthen town gown relationships." She then questioned how the St. Patrick’s Day problem aligned with that statement. The implication was that it did not, and it was apparent that the issue was intentionally left off the list of initiatives because Cal Poly did not want to address it. There was significant pushback from City representatives, including the City Manager, Whitney McDonald, Councilmember Andy Pease, Mayor Erica Stewart, Christine Wallace, and the two Neighborhood Representatives for Geographical Neighborhoods and RQN. Ms. Spragins finally gave in and added it to the list of initiatives. Ms. McDonald asked that Cal Poly provide a report about St. Patrick’s Day plans as a standing item on the SCLC agenda. Without that pushback, the item would not have been included as an SCLC initiative for last academic year 2024-2025. 5 This highlights the heart of the matter, which is that the concerns of the two Representatives in the extreme minority speak out about real issues in the neighborhoods near Cal Poly are never agendized or addressed by the SCLC. Those Representatives are also not supported by the City Representatives on SCLC and have been criticized by other members of SCLC for stating their concerns. It seems like SCLC is pointless when it comes to solving meaningful neighborhood issues, which was the original purpose of the SCLC and was emphasized in the Civility Report in 2015. The problem was amplified when MOU eliminated the ability of the “Resident Organizations” to appoint two representatives independent of Cal Poly, Cuesta, and the City. The context and reasoning for that rule were explained to Police Chief Scott, but were ignored when he revised the MOU with Ms. Crawford. The limited voice of the Geographical Neighborhood, Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre, and RQN Representative, Mr. Cross, certainly has not carried any weight to solve the problems of illegal fraternities and ongoing associated noise, etc., as outlined in the Grand Jury report, even though the City represents an argument that SCLC is an inclusive avenue that does solve neighborhood town- gown problems. That narrative is false, and those issues brough up by Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre and Mr. Cross have been ignored by the SCLC overall. Discourse is a necessary part of the purpose of the SCLC. If each member is appointed by Cal Poly and City leadership without giving residents affected by college students in their neighborhoods, it defeats the intended purpose and mission of SCLC and becomes another political group with “elected” members associated with the majority. There should be more impacted residents on the SCLC to bring parity and real solutions to the issues felt by the neighborhoods in the northern part of the City. Otherwise, it is disingenous for the City to represent that Representatives concerned for the neighborhoods who have spoken out about neighborhood issuses are "heard" or have any impact on the problems outlined in the Grand Jury report. Thank you for your consideration. -Kathie Walker Memorandum of Understanding Between California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) , Associated Students, Inc. of Cal ifornia Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo (ASI), the Associated Students of Cuesta College (ASCC) , the City of San Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo Regarding the Student-Community Liaison Committee XXX XX, 2023 This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between Cal Poly, the Associated St udents, Inc. of California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo (ASI), the Associated Students of Cuesta College (ASCC), the City of San Luis Obispo (City) and the County of San Luis Obispo (County). Background: The Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) was formed in the spring of 1987 to address issues regarding the community and Cal Poly students. It was envisioned that the chair should be the Cal Poly student body president to demonstrate parity between the students and city officials. serve as a mechanism of communication among Cal Poly, the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis Obispo community, to develop and strengthen town gown relationships to address issues regarding the community and Cal Poly students. It was envisioned that the chair should be the Cal Poly student body president to demonstrate parity between students and city officials. In 1988, SCLC was expanded to include representation from Cuesta College. Thanks to the support from several areas (City Departments, Chamber of Commerce, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods and other Cal Poly organizations), SCLC was acknowledged as a key link in communication between students and the City & County of San Luis Obispo. Term: The term of this Memorandum of Understanding shall be from January 1 through December 31, and will be automatically renewed annually for the period of January 1 through December 31 unless written notice of either party is given requesting termination. This Agreement is effective on XXXXXX and will automatically renew each year successively unless terminated by either party upon written notice prior to the expiration of the then current renewal term. The agreement will be distributed prior to the first meeting of the new academic year and subsequently reviewed for changes annually at the first SCLC meeting of the academic year. Purpose: The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to define the relationship between Associated Students, Inc., the Associated Students of Cuesta College, the City of San Luis Obispo and the 1 of 7 County of San Luis Obispo as represented by the SCLC outline the structure of SCLC and responsibilities of all parties represented within the SCLC. Mission: The mission of the SCLC is to serve as a mechanism for communication between Cal Poly State University , Cuesta College, the City of San Luis Obispo , and the County of San Luis Obispo, and community organizations within San Luis Obispo. SCLC will serve and to proactively engage in discussions and actions to promote positive relations, mutual respect, and improved quality of life for all members of the San Luis Obispo community. Objective of the SCLC: In order to achieve our mission purpose , SCLC will: ● Educate student and non-student residents in the community about cooperative methods to improve neighborhood relations. ● Promote the positive aspects of campus and community co-existence and interaction. ● Encourage increased participation, collaboration, and involvement in activities on campus and in the community. ● Serve as a public forum on student/community related issues. ● Advise City government bodies or other community organizations on City issues through consultative review. ● Share information about the campuses and community to strengthen relationships and enhance quality of life for all residents of San Luis Obispo. ● Explore and implement solutions to pertinent problems . Problem solving through collaborative exploration and implementation of meaningful solutions to pertinent issues. Open Meeting Act Adherence: As a group comprising a variety of elected officials, the SCLC is committed to adhering to the Brown Act, also known as the Brown Open Meeting Act. Under the Brown Act, the SCLC will conduct its meetings openly, providing advance notice to the public, allowing public attendance, and enabling public comment on relevant matters. The group will also maintain accurate records of meetings. By following the Brown Act, the SCLC upholds the principles of transparency and public participation, fostering trust and accountability within the community it serves. Meetings: Shall be held the third Thursday of each month annually, except for monthly at a set and recurring time, with the exception of December, June and July, unless otherwise noted in the annual calendar or at the discretion of the chair. Reports and Agenda Format: A. One minute brief report from each voting member of the Committee B. Updates from an Subcommittees C. Business items shall consist of items within the purview and scope of SCLC D. Agenda and meeting materials shall be distributed no less than 48 hours prior to each meeting. ● Call to order ● Approval of minutes ● Open Forum ● Reports: o Chair/Vice Chair o San Luis Obispo City Manager o Neighborhood Wellness Civility Report 2 of 7 o Residents for Quality Neighborhoods o Community Representative Reports ● Old Business ● New Business ● Voting Member Reports (1 minute) ● Announcements ● Adjournment SCLC Officers: Chair ● Shall be the current ASI President ● Shall run facilitate SCLC meetings ● Shall provide an agenda and minutes for each meeting ● Appoint subcommittee chairs Vice Chair ● Shall be the current ASCC President ● Assume responsibility for chair in their absence Representation Membership: Voting members shall include representatives from Cal Poly, ASI, Cuesta College, the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo County, and San Luis Obispo resident organizations designated representatives for the San Luis Obispo community. The Chair shall be the Cal Poly ASI President. The Vice Chair shall be the Cuesta College ASCC President. *All voting members may designate proxy except for the chair and vice chair positions. Cal Poly ● Dean of Students ● Interfraternity Council representative ● Panhellenic Council representative ● United Sorority and Fraternity Council representative ASI ● Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) President ● Student-at-Large (appointed by ASI President) ● ASI Executive Director Cuesta College ● ASCC President ● Vice President of Student Services ● Student-at-Large, appointed by ASCC ● ASCC Advisor City of San Luis Obispo ● Mayor ● City Manager ● Police Chief ● Neighborhood Outreach Manager Police Public Affairs Manager 3 of 7 County of San Luis Obispo ● Board of Supervisors representative Community ● Non-student community member s -at-large ● Geographic Neighborhoods Association /Group representatives ● Residents for Quality Neighborhoods representative Community Partners ● SLO Solutions/Creative Mediation representative Representatives Role within the SCLC: SCLC shall: ● Educate student and non-student residents in the community about cooperative methods to improve neighborhood relations. ● Promote the positive aspects of campus and community co-existence and interaction. ● Encourage increased participation, collaboration and involvement in activities on campus and in the community. ● Serve as a public forum on student/community related issues. ● Advise City government bodies or other community organizations on City issues through consultative review. ● Explore and implement solutions to pertinent problems. Cal Poly shall: ● Provide the following voting representatives: Dean of Students, or designee,(1) Interfraternity Council representative, (1) Panhellenic Council representative, (1) United Sorority and Fraternity Council representative. ● Participate in education of community for improving student/community relations. ASI shall: ● Provide chairperson for the SCLC, in the form of the elected ASI President and an additional student-at-large. ● Provide the following voting representatives: (1) Student-at-Large, ASI Executive Director, or designee. ● Coordinate monthly meeting schedule for the SCLC, plus appropriate workshops , subcommittee meeting, etc . including subcommittee meetings, socials , etc. as necessary. ● Coordinate annual goal setting workshop s in support of the SCLC mission purpose . ● Provide basic administrative support for meeting minutes, handouts, and other committee documents. Cuesta College/ASCC shall: ● Provide the vice chair for the SCLC, in the form of the elected ASCC President and an additional student-at-large . ● Provide the following voting representatives: (1) Student-at-large, ASCC Advisor, and the Vice President of Student Services, or designee. ● Work with and Support the functions of, the SCLC Chair in coordinating meetings, subcommittees, and annual workshops, such as transition, as needed. ● Participate in education of community about improving for strengthening student/community relations. 4 of 7 City of San Luis Obispo shall: ● Provide meeting space for monthly meetings. ● Provide the following voting representatives: two City Council representatives including the Mayor and. by rotation, a councilmember. San Luis Obispo Mayor, San Luis Obispo City Manager, San Luis Obispo Police Chief, and San Luis Obispo Police Neighborhood Outreach Manager Public Affairs Manager, or designee. ● Provide the following non-voting representatives: One City Council representative, or designee. ● Participate in education of community about improving for strengthening student/community relations. County of San Luis Obispo shall: ● Provide at least one Supervisor, or representative from his/her office the following voting representatives: (1) San Luis Obispo County Supervisor, or designee , whose district includes the City of San Luis Obispo. ● Provide other non-voting San Luis Obispo County support staff as available through the office of the participating Supervisor. ● Participate in education of community about improving for strengthening student/community relations. San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations shall: San Luis Obispo Residents for Quality Neighborhoods shall: ● Appoint Provide one member voting representative from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, or designee to serve on SCLC ● Appoint one member to represent Geographic Neighborhood Association ● Appoint one community member-at-large ● Participate in education of community about improving for strengthening student/community relations Community Partners shall: ● SLO Solutions/Creative Mediation shall provide (1) voting representative , or designee to serve on the SCLC. ● Provide input, guidance, and awareness of important resources for managing and mitigating community conflict around issues that immerge between student/community relationships. SCLC shall nominate and appoint (by a majority vote): ● At least one (1) and no more than five (5) voting community members-at-large selected from the following: o A recognized City of San Luis Obispo Geographic Neighborhood Association/Group and/or; o A City of San Luis Obispo community member with an expressed interest, demonstrated impact, or in immediate proximity to either Cal Poly University or Cuesta College. ● These members shall participate in education of community for strengthening student/community relations and the work and goals of SCLC in the SLO community. 5 of 7 Annual Budget: In order to carry out the mission of the SCLC and its endeavors, each representative shall contribute to the SCLC budget, to be administered by Cal Poly ASI. The budget shall be used for but not limited to: funding from the following representatives is provided on an annual basis. ASI will send invoices to each representative following the approval of the MOU. Funds collected will be held by ASI. All funding appropriation decisions require approval by the SCLC . Funds are intended, but not limited to support: SCLC marketing materials, annual events, grants for projects that promote community wellbeing, and meeting supplies. Budget funds not used in a fiscal year will rollover to the next fiscal year. Representative Amount: Cal Poly $500 ASI In-Kind (administrative support) Cuesta College/ASCC $500 City of San Luis Obispo (City Council/Mayor, City Administrator, San Luis Obispo Police Department) $500 County of San Luis Obispo (Two members of the Board of Supervisors) $500 In witness whereof, this Memorandum of Understanding has been executed by the parties hereto as of the date first above written. Sam Andrews ASI President Associated Students, Inc. California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA Zack Stever ASCC President Associated Students of Cuesta College San Luis Obispo, CA Dr. Joy Pedersen Dean of Students California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA Derek Johnson City Manager San Luis Obispo, CA Approved by the SCLC on XXX XX, 2023 6 of 7 Michelle Crawford ASI Executive Director Associated Students, Inc. California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA Dr. Elizabeth Coria Vice President of Student Services-Designee Associated Students of Cuesta College San Luis Obispo, CA Erica A. Stewart Mayor City of San Luis Obispo, CA Debbie Arnold County of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 2 of 7 1 From: Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 3:17 PM To:Marx, Jan; Stewart, Erica A; Shoresman, Michelle; Boswell, Mike; Francis, Emily Subject:Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Dear City Councilmembers, My mom died two weeks ago, on June 28, 2025, after a devastating battle with brain cancer. Sadly, she was drawn into far-right politics and firmly believed Ivermectin would cure her disease. Despite efforts from family members, she rejected all other treatments. Misinformation stole her chance at life. I am shaken by her loss and furious that she was misled by voices who value ideology over truth. We are living through terrifying times, when politicians claim “up is down” and too many people believe them, even when reality says otherwise. Most days, I can’t even turn on the television. The news feels surreal. I fear for our collective future. In the midst of all this uncertainty, I long for something stable and familiar. I wish I could rely on the comfort of living peacefully in San Luis Obispo, where my mom, her mom, and my own children and grandchildren have lived. I wish I could believe in a hometown where City leadership and elected officials uphold truth, transparency, and integrity. But I don’t. For nearly two decades, my family has lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood, which is now overrun by illegal fraternity houses that have shattered our peace and impacted our health. This is not about noisy student parties. These are full-scale fraternity operations - dozens of them - with waves of screaming partiers parading from house to house on weekends. What we witness from our front yard would shock most people. No one in a residential neighborhood should have to live through the chaos we’ve endured. This has taken a toll on our health. I now receive medical treatment for anxiety, and my dentist recently said I’ve started grinding my teeth at night, which has damaged them. My husband, Steve, cannot take medications because FAA regulations govern his job, but his health has also been affected. He’s had to miss work because the lack of sleep from noisy fraternity parties has left him too exhausted to safely perform his duties. That’s how serious this is. It has wrecked our lives. Since Fall 2021, I’ve sent you videos documenting violations and raging parties at known illegal fraternity houses in R1 and R2 zones. SLOPD cleared most as “negative violation” or “unable to locate.” I’ve invited you, the Council, to come see for yourselves. No one has taken me up on my invitation. But others did. A reporter from The Tribune came. The Tribune Editorial Board urged the City to act quickly and deemed the neighborhood “unlivable.” The Grand Jury also visited during a weekend and saw the mayhem firsthand. Their report concluded that the neighborhood is “almost unlivable for most residents.” The City’s response? “There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are 'almost unlivable'…” Up is down. 2 When it comes to noise, I’ve sent you video after video of insanely loud fraternity parties. There are 40 illegal fraternity houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood, where there were only a few ten years ago. There are almost a dozen in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, where there were zero ten years ago. I’ve highlighted the addresses of noise complaints tied to these properties from SLOPD’s weekend logs. The Grand Jury’s finding of three citations per weekend in this small neighborhood was conservative. The City’s response? “There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years…” Up is down. When the Grand Jury released its report, I felt a flicker of hope that finally, something might change. Instead, the City responded with a 27-page document full of denials, corrections, and deflections. Reading it made me physically ill. After a second and third reading, I felt embarrassed on the City’s behalf. Many of the corrections were trivial and did not address the core issue. The City doubled down and refused to accept responsibility. Up is down. Then, as the reality of the City’s indifference set in, my mother died. She was 21 years older than I am. It hit me: if my life follows the same path, I may only have 21 autumns left. Twenty-one Christmases. Twenty-one summers. Such limited chances to be present with my family, and I cannot afford to spend them in a place where Thursday through Sunday, peace is shattered and rest is impossible. How can I live in a neighborhood where I cannot actually live? So, with the help of our daughter and son-in-law, we made a heartbreaking, financially devastating decision. We bought a home in a quieter neighborhood near Sinsheimer Park. It will cost us thousands of dollars more per month and wipe out our savings. But we had no choice. We needed peace to survive. The City should have enforced its zoning laws, but it has not. Not a single fraternity has been shut down. It should have held Cal Poly’s fraternities accountable, but it hasn’t even obtained the addresses of illegal houses from Greek Life. You should have responded to residents pleading for help, but you did not. We were ignored, again and again, for years. Instead of taking responsibility, the City denied, deflected, and defended. It dismissed our lived experience. It rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. It turned its back on the truth. It is a disgrace. I can only hope that, moving forward, each of you, as elected representatives, will reflect on the choices that have led us here and commit to making better, braver decisions rooted in truth, transparency, and a genuine concern for the well-being of all residents. Do the right thing and hold Cal Poly accountable. The people of San Luis Obispo deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Alta Vista Resident, soon to be displaced from the home we love 1 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 3:33 PM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Kathie, I am deeply sorry to hear about the loss of your mother. Losing a parent is an unimaginable pain, and I can only imagine how difficult it must be to process everything, especially under such circumstances. Having gone through the loss of my own mother, I know how disorienting and heavy grief can be. I hope you are able to find moments of peace and support in the love of your family as you navigate this heartbreak. As you've acknowledged, the issues in your former neighborhood did not appear overnight and will take some systemic reform to address in a meaningful way. I believe most other communities like ours that have addressed the issue of off-campus fraternities have done so through the universities creating a Greek row or similar structure to place the impactful residences away from the rest of the community. I would love to see Cal Poly make that choice, but in the meantime, the city has some decisions to make regarding how we handle CUPs, repeat code enforcement issues including noise, and other issues relating to quality of life. Although the process moves at a snail’s pace, I’m heartened to see that these items are now on the agenda. I can't imagine your lived experience, but I have frequented the neighborhoods during the noisy times to see firsthand what you describe, and I know that the noise is incredibly challenging. I hope we are able to make some real progress on a more holistic approach to the issue in the upcoming months. I was also saddened to hear about your decision to leave the Alta Vista neighborhood. I recognize how much thought and emotional weight must have gone into making that choice after so many years in a home that held such meaning for your family. I sincerely hope that your move to the Sinsheimer neighborhood brings you some of the peace and stability you’ve been seeking. 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 Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 3:17 PM, kathie walker < wrote: Dear City Councilmembers, 2 My mom died two weeks ago, on June 28, 2025, after a devastating battle with brain cancer. Sadly, she was drawn into far-right politics and firmly believed Ivermectin would cure her disease. Despite efforts from family members, she rejected all other treatments. Misinformation stole her chance at life. I am shaken by her loss and furious that she was misled by voices who value ideology over truth. We are living through terrifying times, when politicians claim “up is down” and too many people believe them, even when reality says otherwise. Most days, I can’t even turn on the television. The news feels surreal. I fear for our collective future. In the midst of all this uncertainty, I long for something stable and familiar. I wish I could rely on the comfort of living peacefully in San Luis Obispo, where my mom, her mom, and my own children and grandchildren have lived. I wish I could believe in a hometown where City leadership and elected officials uphold truth, transparency, and integrity. But I don’t. For nearly two decades, my family has lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood, which is now overrun by illegal fraternity houses that have shattered our peace and impacted our health. This is not about noisy student parties. These are full-scale fraternity operations - dozens of them - with waves of screaming partiers parading from house to house on weekends. What we witness from our front yard would shock most people. No one in a residential neighborhood should have to live through the chaos we’ve endured. This has taken a toll on our health. I now receive medical treatment for anxiety, and my dentist recently said I’ve started grinding my teeth at night, which has damaged them. My husband, Steve, cannot take medications because FAA regulations govern his job, but his health has also been affected. He’s had to miss work because the lack of sleep from noisy fraternity parties has left him too exhausted to safely perform his duties. That’s how serious this is. It has wrecked our lives. Since Fall 2021, I’ve sent you videos documenting violations and raging parties at known illegal fraternity houses in R1 and R2 zones. SLOPD cleared most as “negative violation” or “unable to locate.” I’ve invited you, the Council, to come see for yourselves. No one has taken me up on my invitation. But others did. A reporter from The Tribune came. The Tribune Editorial Board urged the City to act quickly and deemed the neighborhood “unlivable.” The Grand Jury also visited during a weekend and saw the mayhem firsthand. Their report concluded that the neighborhood is “almost unlivable for most residents.” The City’s response? “There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are 'almost unlivable'…” Up is down. When it comes to noise, I’ve sent you video after video of insanely loud fraternity parties. There are 40 illegal fraternity houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood, where there were only a few ten years ago. There are almost a dozen in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, where there were zero ten years ago. I’ve highlighted the addresses of noise complaints tied to these properties from SLOPD’s weekend logs. The Grand Jury’s finding of three citations per weekend in this small neighborhood was conservative. The City’s response? “There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years…” 3 Up is down. When the Grand Jury released its report, I felt a flicker of hope that finally, something might change. Instead, the City responded with a 27-page document full of denials, corrections, and deflections. Reading it made me physically ill. After a second and third reading, I felt embarrassed on the City’s behalf. Many of the corrections were trivial and did not address the core issue. The City doubled down and refused to accept responsibility. Up is down. Then, as the reality of the City’s indifference set in, my mother died. She was 21 years older than I am. It hit me: if my life follows the same path, I may only have 21 autumns left. Twenty-one Christmases. Twenty-one summers. Such limited chances to be present with my family, and I cannot afford to spend them in a place where Thursday through Sunday, peace is shattered and rest is impossible. How can I live in a neighborhood where I cannot actually live? So, with the help of our daughter and son-in-law, we made a heartbreaking, financially devastating decision. We bought a home in a quieter neighborhood near Sinsheimer Park. It will cost us thousands of dollars more per month and wipe out our savings. But we had no choice. We needed peace to survive. The City should have enforced its zoning laws, but it has not. Not a single fraternity has been shut down. It should have held Cal Poly’s fraternities accountable, but it hasn’t even obtained the addresses of illegal houses from Greek Life. You should have responded to residents pleading for help, but you did not. We were ignored, again and again, for years. Instead of taking responsibility, the City denied, deflected, and defended. It dismissed our lived experience. It rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. It turned its back on the truth. It is a disgrace. I can only hope that, moving forward, each of you, as elected representatives, will reflect on the choices that have led us here and commit to making better, braver decisions rooted in truth, transparency, and a genuine concern for the well-being of all residents. Do the right thing and hold Cal Poly accountable. The people of San Luis Obispo deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Alta Vista Resident, soon to be displaced from the home we love 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Saturday, July 12, 2025 6:24 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Michelle, I didn't necessarily want my comments recognized in the record so intentionally did not sent it to EmailCouncil@slocity.org. I just wanted each of you, as my elected representatives, to understand the gravity of the situation. On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 3:36 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, I want to make sure your concerns are heard, so I am copying the Clerk. As I think you know, this is the only way to get your comments recognized in the record. Emailing emailcouncil@slocity.org, as I have mentioned before, is the best way to do that. Again, I am very sorry for your loss and for all the medical and mental health issues you and your family have experienced. Michelle From: kathie walker < Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 3:17 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Dear City Councilmembers, My mom died two weeks ago, on June 28, 2025, after a devastating battle with brain cancer. Sadly, she was drawn into far-right politics and firmly believed Ivermectin would cure her disease. Despite efforts from family members, she rejected all other treatments. Misinformation stole her chance at life. I am shaken by her loss and furious that she was misled by voices who value ideology over truth. We are living through terrifying times, when politicians claim “up is down” and too many people believe them, even when reality says otherwise. Most days, I can’t even turn on the television. The news feels surreal. I fear for our collective future. 2 In the midst of all this uncertainty, I long for something stable and familiar. I wish I could rely on the comfort of living peacefully in San Luis Obispo, where my mom, her mom, and my own children and grandchildren have lived. I wish I could believe in a hometown where City leadership and elected officials uphold truth, transparency, and integrity. But I don’t. For nearly two decades, my family has lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood, which is now overrun by illegal fraternity houses that have shattered our peace and impacted our health. This is not about noisy student parties. These are full-scale fraternity operations - dozens of them - with waves of screaming partiers parading from house to house on weekends. What we witness from our front yard would shock most people. No one in a residential neighborhood should have to live through the chaos we’ve endured. This has taken a toll on our health. I now receive medical treatment for anxiety, and my dentist recently said I’ve started grinding my teeth at night, which has damaged them. My husband, Steve, cannot take medications because FAA regulations govern his job, but his health has also been affected. He’s had to miss work because the lack of sleep from noisy fraternity parties has left him too exhausted to safely perform his duties. That’s how serious this is. It has wrecked our lives. Since Fall 2021, I’ve sent you videos documenting violations and raging parties at known illegal fraternity houses in R1 and R2 zones. SLOPD cleared most as “negative violation” or “unable to locate.” I’ve invited you, the Council, to come see for yourselves. No one has taken me up on my invitation. But others did. A reporter from The Tribune came. The Tribune Editorial Board urged the City to act quickly and deemed the neighborhood “unlivable.” The Grand Jury also visited during a weekend and saw the mayhem firsthand. Their report concluded that the neighborhood is “almost unlivable for most residents.” The City’s response? “There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are 'almost unlivable'…” Up is down. When it comes to noise, I’ve sent you video after video of insanely loud fraternity parties. There are 40 illegal fraternity houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood, where there were only a few ten years ago. There are almost a dozen in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, where there were zero ten years ago. I’ve highlighted the addresses of noise complaints tied to these properties from SLOPD’s weekend logs. The Grand Jury’s finding of three citations per weekend in this small neighborhood was conservative. The City’s response? “There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years…” Up is down. When the Grand Jury released its report, I felt a flicker of hope that finally, something might change. Instead, the City responded with a 27-page document full of denials, corrections, and deflections. Reading it made me physically ill. After a second and third reading, I felt embarrassed on the City’s behalf. Many of the corrections were trivial and did not address the core issue. The City doubled down and refused to accept responsibility. Up is down. 3 Then, as the reality of the City’s indifference set in, my mother died. She was 21 years older than I am. It hit me: if my life follows the same path, I may only have 21 autumns left. Twenty-one Christmases. Twenty-one summers. Such limited chances to be present with my family, and I cannot afford to spend them in a place where Thursday through Sunday, peace is shattered and rest is impossible. How can I live in a neighborhood where I cannot actually live? So, with the help of our daughter and son-in-law, we made a heartbreaking, financially devastating decision. We bought a home in a quieter neighborhood near Sinsheimer Park. It will cost us thousands of dollars more per month and wipe out our savings. But we had no choice. We needed peace to survive. The City should have enforced its zoning laws, but it has not. Not a single fraternity has been shut down. It should have held Cal Poly’s fraternities accountable, but it hasn’t even obtained the addresses of illegal houses from Greek Life. You should have responded to residents pleading for help, but you did not. We were ignored, again and again, for years. Instead of taking responsibility, the City denied, deflected, and defended. It dismissed our lived experience. It rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. It turned its back on the truth. It is a disgrace. I can only hope that, moving forward, each of you, as elected representatives, will reflect on the choices that have led us here and commit to making better, braver decisions rooted in truth, transparency, and a genuine concern for the well-being of all residents. Do the right thing and hold Cal Poly accountable. The people of San Luis Obispo deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Alta Vista Resident, soon to be displaced from the home we love 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Saturday, July 12, 2025 3:37 PM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Hi Kathie, I want to make sure your concerns are heard, so I am copying the Clerk. As I think you know, this is the only way to get your comments recognized in the record. Emailing emailcouncil@slocity.org, as I have mentioned before, is the best way to do that. Again, I am very sorry for your loss and for all the medical and mental health issues you and your family have experienced. Michelle From: kathie walker < Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 3:17 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Dear City Councilmembers, My mom died two weeks ago, on June 28, 2025, after a devastating battle with brain cancer. Sadly, she was drawn into far-right politics and firmly believed Ivermectin would cure her disease. Despite efforts from family members, she rejected all other treatments. Misinformation stole her chance at life. I am shaken by her loss and furious that she was misled by voices who value ideology over truth. We are living through terrifying times, when politicians claim “up is down” and too many people believe them, even when reality says otherwise. Most days, I can’t even turn on the television. The news feels surreal. I fear for our collective future. In the midst of all this uncertainty, I long for something stable and familiar. I wish I could rely on the comfort of living peacefully in San Luis Obispo, where my mom, her mom, and my own children and grandchildren have lived. I wish I could believe in a hometown where City leadership and elected officials uphold truth, transparency, and integrity. But I don’t. For nearly two decades, my family has lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood, which is now overrun by illegal fraternity houses that have shattered our peace and impacted our health. This is not about noisy student parties. These are full-scale fraternity operations - dozens of them - with waves of screaming partiers parading from house to house on weekends. What we witness from our front yard would shock most people. No one in a residential neighborhood should have to live through the chaos we’ve endured. This has taken a toll on our health. I now receive medical treatment for anxiety, and my dentist recently said I’ve started grinding my teeth at night, which has damaged them. My husband, Steve, cannot take medications because FAA regulations govern his job, but his health has also been affected. He’s had to miss work because 2 the lack of sleep from noisy fraternity parties has left him too exhausted to safely perform his duties. That’s how serious this is. It has wrecked our lives. Since Fall 2021, I’ve sent you videos documenting violations and raging parties at known illegal fraternity houses in R1 and R2 zones. SLOPD cleared most as “negative violation” or “unable to locate.” I’ve invited you, the Council, to come see for yourselves. No one has taken me up on my invitation. But others did. A reporter from The Tribune came. The Tribune Editorial Board urged the City to act quickly and deemed the neighborhood “unlivable.” The Grand Jury also visited during a weekend and saw the mayhem firsthand. Their report concluded that the neighborhood is “almost unlivable for most residents.” The City’s response? “There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are 'almost unlivable'…” Up is down. When it comes to noise, I’ve sent you video after video of insanely loud fraternity parties. There are 40 illegal fraternity houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood, where there were only a few ten years ago. There are almost a dozen in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, where there were zero ten years ago. I’ve highlighted the addresses of noise complaints tied to these properties from SLOPD’s weekend logs. The Grand Jury’s finding of three citations per weekend in this small neighborhood was conservative. The City’s response? “There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years…” Up is down. When the Grand Jury released its report, I felt a flicker of hope that finally, something might change. Instead, the City responded with a 27-page document full of denials, corrections, and deflections. Reading it made me physically ill. After a second and third reading, I felt embarrassed on the City’s behalf. Many of the corrections were trivial and did not address the core issue. The City doubled down and refused to accept responsibility. Up is down. Then, as the reality of the City’s indifference set in, my mother died. She was 21 years older than I am. It hit me: if my life follows the same path, I may only have 21 autumns left. Twenty-one Christmases. Twenty-one summers. Such limited chances to be present with my family, and I cannot afford to spend them in a place where Thursday through Sunday, peace is shattered and rest is impossible. How can I live in a neighborhood where I cannot actually live? So, with the help of our daughter and son-in-law, we made a heartbreaking, financially devastating decision. We bought a home in a quieter neighborhood near Sinsheimer Park. It will cost us thousands of dollars more per month and wipe out our savings. But we had no choice. We needed peace to survive. The City should have enforced its zoning laws, but it has not. Not a single fraternity has been shut down. It should have held Cal Poly’s fraternities accountable, but it hasn’t even obtained the addresses of illegal houses 3 from Greek Life. You should have responded to residents pleading for help, but you did not. We were ignored, again and again, for years. Instead of taking responsibility, the City denied, deflected, and defended. It dismissed our lived experience. It rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. It turned its back on the truth. It is a disgrace. I can only hope that, moving forward, each of you, as elected representatives, will reflect on the choices that have led us here and commit to making better, braver decisions rooted in truth, transparency, and a genuine concern for the well-being of all residents. Do the right thing and hold Cal Poly accountable. The people of San Luis Obispo deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Alta Vista Resident, soon to be displaced from the home we love 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Saturday, July 12, 2025 6:44 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury We do, Kathie. I’m not sure how to convince you of that. Just FYI…any email you send to all five of us, I will always copy the clerk on, because it’s important for staff to see community member comments as well. There is a high likelihood that my colleagues will do the same, for the same reasons. Again, I’m sorry for your loss. From: kathie walker < Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2025 6:24 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Michelle, I didn't necessarily want my comments recognized in the record so intentionally did not sent it to EmailCouncil@slocity.org. I just wanted each of you, as my elected representatives, to understand the gravity of the situation. On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 3:36 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, I want to make sure your concerns are heard, so I am copying the Clerk. As I think you know, this is the only way to get your comments recognized in the record. Emailing emailcouncil@slocity.org, as I have mentioned before, is the best way to do that. Again, I am very sorry for your loss and for all the medical and mental health issues you and your family have experienced. Michelle From: kathie walker < Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 3:17 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury 2 Dear City Councilmembers, My mom died two weeks ago, on June 28, 2025, after a devastating battle with brain cancer. Sadly, she was drawn into far-right politics and firmly believed Ivermectin would cure her disease. Despite efforts from family members, she rejected all other treatments. Misinformation stole her chance at life. I am shaken by her loss and furious that she was misled by voices who value ideology over truth. We are living through terrifying times, when politicians claim “up is down” and too many people believe them, even when reality says otherwise. Most days, I can’t even turn on the television. The news feels surreal. I fear for our collective future. In the midst of all this uncertainty, I long for something stable and familiar. I wish I could rely on the comfort of living peacefully in San Luis Obispo, where my mom, her mom, and my own children and grandchildren have lived. I wish I could believe in a hometown where City leadership and elected officials uphold truth, transparency, and integrity. But I don’t. For nearly two decades, my family has lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood, which is now overrun by illegal fraternity houses that have shattered our peace and impacted our health. This is not about noisy student parties. These are full-scale fraternity operations - dozens of them - with waves of screaming partiers parading from house to house on weekends. What we witness from our front yard would shock most people. No one in a residential neighborhood should have to live through the chaos we’ve endured. This has taken a toll on our health. I now receive medical treatment for anxiety, and my dentist recently said I’ve started grinding my teeth at night, which has damaged them. My husband, Steve, cannot take medications because FAA regulations govern his job, but his health has also been affected. He’s had to miss work because the lack of sleep from noisy fraternity parties has left him too exhausted to safely perform his duties. That’s how serious this is. It has wrecked our lives. Since Fall 2021, I’ve sent you videos documenting violations and raging parties at known illegal fraternity houses in R1 and R2 zones. SLOPD cleared most as “negative violation” or “unable to locate.” I’ve invited you, the Council, to come see for yourselves. No one has taken me up on my invitation. But others did. A reporter from The Tribune came. The Tribune Editorial Board urged the City to act quickly and deemed the neighborhood “unlivable.” The Grand Jury also visited during a weekend and saw the mayhem firsthand. Their report concluded that the neighborhood is “almost unlivable for most residents.” The City’s response? “There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are 'almost unlivable'…” Up is down. When it comes to noise, I’ve sent you video after video of insanely loud fraternity parties. There are 40 illegal fraternity houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood, where there were only a few ten years ago. There are almost a dozen in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, where there were zero ten years ago. I’ve highlighted the addresses of noise complaints tied to these properties from SLOPD’s weekend logs. The Grand Jury’s finding of three citations per weekend in this small neighborhood was conservative. 3 The City’s response? “There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years…” Up is down. When the Grand Jury released its report, I felt a flicker of hope that finally, something might change. Instead, the City responded with a 27-page document full of denials, corrections, and deflections. Reading it made me physically ill. After a second and third reading, I felt embarrassed on the City’s behalf. Many of the corrections were trivial and did not address the core issue. The City doubled down and refused to accept responsibility. Up is down. Then, as the reality of the City’s indifference set in, my mother died. She was 21 years older than I am. It hit me: if my life follows the same path, I may only have 21 autumns left. Twenty-one Christmases. Twenty-one summers. Such limited chances to be present with my family, and I cannot afford to spend them in a place where Thursday through Sunday, peace is shattered and rest is impossible. How can I live in a neighborhood where I cannot actually live? So, with the help of our daughter and son-in-law, we made a heartbreaking, financially devastating decision. We bought a home in a quieter neighborhood near Sinsheimer Park. It will cost us thousands of dollars more per month and wipe out our savings. But we had no choice. We needed peace to survive. The City should have enforced its zoning laws, but it has not. Not a single fraternity has been shut down. It should have held Cal Poly’s fraternities accountable, but it hasn’t even obtained the addresses of illegal houses from Greek Life. You should have responded to residents pleading for help, but you did not. We were ignored, again and again, for years. Instead of taking responsibility, the City denied, deflected, and defended. It dismissed our lived experience. It rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. It turned its back on the truth. It is a disgrace. I can only hope that, moving forward, each of you, as elected representatives, will reflect on the choices that have led us here and commit to making better, braver decisions rooted in truth, transparency, and a genuine concern for the well-being of all residents. Do the right thing and hold Cal Poly accountable. The people of San Luis Obispo deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Alta Vista Resident, soon to be displaced from the home we love 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 10:07 AM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Hi Michelle, Thank you for your response. Yes, it is true that there was discssion about the specific St. Fratty's/St. Patrick's Day event, after some arm- twisting to have the issue included as an initiative for 2024-2025. However, the larger issue and the main factors addessed by the Grand Jury within the four chapters of its report are related to the dozens of illegal fraternities embedded in the residential neighborhoods that cause absolute mayhem and gravely affect the residents who live in these neighborhoods (and The Tribune article & Editorial by the Tribune Board related to the same issue). Those issues have never been agendized or discussed, even though it has been brought up during every SCLC meeting by two members who represent the neighborhoods. (The third member representing the neighborhoods has never brought up the issue and has criticized those who do.) To claim that SCLC has been a forum for actual discussion about this issue is not true. The two members have tried to discuss it and have hit a brick wall again and again. That's one of my points. I included some history for context, as I've seen the evolution of SCLC, and the Council was purposeful when it recommended the two additional seats for residents impacted by college students 10 years ago. Those seats should be appointed by the Neighborhood Groups, not elected by the SCLC, which is primarily Cal Poly and City representatives. Go back to the original intent of expanded the membership to include those two seats, and the Council was specific about the intent of those seats, tying them to residents in SLO who are impacted, and who would align with and support the RQN representative. That's another point that should be addressed. The City is defending against the Grand Jury report by citing the SCLC as a committee that "provides a forum for discussions of shared resident and student concerns and needs." It is not honest to allege that there is open discussion or any solutions for the neighborhood issues brought forward by Mila and Brett. The Grand Jury asked for, and I provided, the recordings of the SCLC meetings. They knew that St. Fratty's/St. Patrick's Day was a standing item on the agenda and heard the reports. That was only one of the issues in their report, which they commended Cal Poly and the City for solving in 2025. They also heard the criticism toward Brett and Mila, and the stonewalling when trying to have the matter addressed by the committee. That is the bigger issue, and the neighborhood problems related to the fraternities are not getting solved. The intent of the Council when the two seats were added was for representatives who are impacted by college students or are involved in neighborhood groups to bring those issues forward. Sorry if I'm repetitive. We've been going through a lot. My mom died two weeks ago, and Steve and I have decided to leave the neighborhood. We are grieving. On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 6:23 AM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: 2 Hi Kathie, Thanks for your email. I appreciate you sharing your concerns as always. There is too much to respond directly to in your email, but I will say that I attended both my assigned meetings of the SCLC earlier this year and happen to have had the opportunity to participate three meetings in a row, before the St. Patrick’s Day just by coincidence of my assigned meeting this year and last. At all the meetings, there was critical discussion and constructive feedback provided and I believe all this (and many other complimentary efforts) contributed to the largely much more contained events this past holiday. It was a constructive discussion effort that, while everyone did not always agree, resulted positively and put us, together, on a path to more future improvements. If we can all keep approaching these challenges constructively, we will get where we want to go together. That said, because there is so much in your email, I am not clear of what your actual request or question is. If you would like to give me two or three sentences on any specific requests you have, I will be happy to try and respond or get answers. Thank you, Michelle From: kathie walker < Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 8:03:56 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Dear City Councilmembers, The Agenda item 8a for the meeting on July 15, 2025, has some "Background" that lists some "approaches by the City that have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings," and it lists the SCLC meetings as one of the approaches. I want to address some of the items on the list separately, starting with the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC). Considering the SCLC is referenced in the City’s response to the Grand Jury and the Agenda as one of the resources to help solve neighborhood issues, there is value in the historical context of SCLC and the relatively recent evolution. Here are some of the important developments to consider: The SCLC was formed in 1987 “to address issues regarding the community and Cal Poly students,” according to its original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Cuesta College was included in 1988. The original purpose and “mission statement” of the committee were to address issues regarding the community and college students. However, portions of the MOU were recently revised by Police Chief Rick Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford, as covered in greater detail below. The Legislative edits showing the MOU before and after it was edited is attached to this email. History of Neighborhood Representatives on the SCLC The previous MOU, before it was revised, listed members of SCLC from Cal Poly, Cuesta, the City of San Luis Obispo, the 5 th District Supervisor and community members including one seat for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) and two seats for other residents which are to be appointed by the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations ”. The “Resident Organizations” 3 referred to organized neighborhoods such as Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Monterey Heights Neighborhood Association (MHNA), and Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF). Those two additional seats for residents impacted by college students in their neighborhood were added in 2016, based on the recommendation of the city council after the Civility-Neighborhood Wellness Report was presented to the council in 2015. Christine Wallace of SLOPD made the presentation. She was then the Neighborhood Outreach Manager and is now the Police Public Affairs Manager and is a voting member of the SCLC. The SCLC updated their MOU in January 2019 to read: “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations shall: Appoint one member from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods; Appoint one member to represent Geographic Neighborhood Association; and Appoint one community member-at-large...” The voting members on SCLC are mostly associated with Cal Poly and Cuesta College. The expansion of two residents' seats on SCLC was to give parity to those residents who are impacted by college students living in the neighborhoods, and to support one another to bring issues forward to be addressed during committee meetings, as stated by the City Council when the SCLC was expanded to include the two additional seats. Some seats were vacant following inconsistent SCLC meetings during the COVID-19 shutdown, including the two resident seats appointed by the Resident Organizations. The two seats were not formally listed as vacant until the SCLC meeting in January 2023. At the SCLC meeting in March 2023, the Resident Organizations brought forward two residents for appointments to the two seats, as is their right per the MOU at that time: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, who lives in the Neighborhoods North of Foothill geographic area, and Lydia Mourenza who has advocated for neighborhood wellness and also lives in the northern part of the city. During the same meeting, San Luis Obispo mayor Erica Stewart recommended that Abe Lincoln be appointed to one of the resident seats, although Mr. Lincoln is not affiliated with the Resident Organizations and was not recommended by them. Mr. Lincoln lives in the Arbors development, which is not affected by issues such as noisy parties and disturbances by college-aged students, and he had never advocated on behalf of any neighborhood association related to neighborhood wellness or the adverse impact of college students in their neighborhood. Mr. Lincoln’s neighborhood has an HOA that prevents the sort of disturbances experienced by college student-impacted neighborhoods. During the March 2023 meeting, Mayor Stewart made a motion to appoint Abe Lincoln. Christine Wallace seconded the motion, and it was passed, which gave Mr. Lincoln one of the seats that were supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations according to SCLC's MOU. Although the Resident Organizations had two people at the meeting that they planned to appoint to the two seats, the SCLC rejected one of their appointments (Lydia Mourenza), contrary to the provisions of the MOU. Notably, Ms. Wallace gave the presentation of the Civility Report to the City Council in 2015, where all five council members recommended the expansion of SCLC by two seats, and each council member said that they should be residents who are concerned with the town gown relationship with the impacts by college students in their neighborhood. Ms. Wallace was also present at the SCLC meeting in January 2019, when the MOU was modified to give the power of appointment of the three “resident” seats to the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. In May 2023, Sandra Rowley went to the SCLC meeting to correct the mistake. She is the chair of RQN and is in communication with the chairs of Resident Organizations such as AVNA, NNOF, etc. Ms. Rowley read the terms of the MOU out loud and pointed out that Mr. Lincoln was illegally appointed to a seat that is supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations. She asked him to step down so the Resident Organizations could appoint their representative, according to the terms of the 4 MOU. Mr. Lincoln refused and posted about the situation on his Facebook page, claiming he was “appointed” by the mayor, Erica Stewart, instead of them [RQN’s appointed person], and he had no intention to step down with the hashtag #smalltownpolitics. In the comments of his Facebook post, Mr. Lincoln criticized another Representative [RQN Board Member Brett Cross], saying: “in the two meetings I have attended a fair amount of time is spent by one individual complaining about the students. I am aiming to try to help change that tone.” And in another comment, he said, “I did mention bringing back Mardi Gras in my first meeting. Maybe that’s what caused the alarm *laughing emoji*” Indeed, Mr. Lincoln has continued to criticize those who have brought up the problems related to noise from illegal fraternities during SCLC meetings and read a prepared statement condemning me and my husband, specifically calling out the website “How to Ruin a Neighborhood”. He has never engaged in any discussion about the noise and problems experienced by those living in the northern part of the city, and such issues were the original intent of the SCLC. The SCLC meetings were recorded so there is no confusion about what has been said during the meetings. 5 When the city council discussed expanding SCLC in 2015, to include two additional seats for residents, they commented that it would be good for the lone community resident on SCLC at that time - the RQN representative – because the RQN representative would feel supported by the two additional residents impacted by college students who would fill the two new seats on the committee. Obviously, Mr. Lincoln’s criticism has not been supportive and is not consistent with the purpose of the seat he is occupying, especially according to the directives of the City Council in 2015. When Ms. Rowley pointed out SCLC’s failure to follow the MOU to appoint Lydia Mourenza to the then-City Manager, she was referred to the Police Chief to resolve the issue. There was some discussion between Ms. Rowley and Chief Scott about a resolution before the fall of 2023, and Chief Scott indicated there could be a resolution to allow a resident who lives in an impacted neighborhood to be appointed to SCLC. However, when the matter was brought up by Ms. Rowley during the first SCLC meeting in August 2024, Chief Scott was silent on the matter, and it was not corrected. Then, Chief Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford revised the MOU to exclude the Resident Organizations’ ability to appoint representatives to the two “resident” seats. The edits eliminated the two seats appointed by the “Resident Organizations” and gave the power to SCLC to elect the residents that SCLC (mostly Cal Poly and City representatives) agree to. A Google doc shows the edits made by both Chief Scott and Ms. Crawford in the right hand column of the document. The revised MOU took away the appointed seats from the organized neighborhood groups who are most impacted by issues related to college students living in their neighborhood. Every other seat in SLCL is “provided” by the City, County, Cal Poly, or Cuesta, and some members are “appointed”, as listed in the MOU. None of those seats are elected by the SCLC. Now, under the terms of the rewritten MOU, the seats for residents are decided by a popularity contest for those who have connections with city leadership, like Mr. Lincoln who was brought forward by the mayor of SLO, even though his is not affiliated with any organized neighborhood group who works for neighborhood wellness related to the negative impacts of college student-issues. It seems that the original intent of SCLC has been pushed aside for a more political “public relations” type agenda. For exam ple, the problem with the illegal fraternity operations within single-family neighborhoods was brought up by the RQN Representative and/or Geographical Neighborhood Representative during 2023-2024 and every SCLC meeting during 2024- 2025 and was never put on the agenda or discussed. The situation today in 2025 is worse than it was in 2023, with more illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods than ever. Unless there is significant pushback from multiple SCLC members, Cal Poly does not engage in solving serious problems. For example, during the first meeting of the academic year in August 2024, the City Manager and others listed St. Fratty’s / St. Patrick’s Day as an important initiative to be discussed for the 2024-2025 academic year. During the next meeting in September 2024, the chair, Cal Poly ASI president Ashley Spragins, presented the list of initiatives for the year and it did not include St. Fratty's / St. Patrick's Day. Ms. McDonald pointed out that St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day was missing from the list of initiatives, and Ms. Spragins pulled out a hard copy of the newer MOU and read the revised first sentence, "SCLC will serve as a mechanism of communication among 6 Cal Poly, the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis Obispo community, to develop and strengthen town gown relationships." She then questioned how the St. Patrick’s Day problem aligned with that statement. The implication was that it did not, and it was apparent that the issue was intentionally left off the list of initiatives because Cal Poly did not want to address it. There was significant pushback from City representatives, including the City Manager, Whitney McDonald, Councilmember Andy Pease, Mayor Erica Stewart, Christine Wallace, and the two Neighborhood Representatives for Geographical Neighborhoods and RQN. Ms. Spragins finally gave in and added it to the list of initiatives. Ms. McDonald asked that Cal Poly provide a report about St. Patrick’s Day plans as a standing item on the SCLC agenda. Without that pushback, the item would not have been included as an SCLC initiative for last academic year 2024-2025. This highlights the heart of the matter, which is that the concerns of the two Representatives in the extreme minority speak out about real issues in the neighborhoods near Cal Poly are never agendized or addressed by the SCLC. Those Representatives are also not supported by the City Representatives on SCLC and have been criticized by other members of SCLC for stating their concerns. It seems like SCLC is pointless when it comes to solving meaningful neighborhood issues, which was the original purpose of the SCLC and was emphasized in the Civility Report in 2015. The problem was amplified when MOU eliminated the ability of the “Resident Organizations” to appoint two representatives independent of Cal Poly, Cuesta, and the City. The context and reasoning for that rule were explained to Police Chief Scott, but were ignored when he revised the MOU with Ms. Crawford. The limited voice of the Geographical Neighborhood, Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre, and RQN Representative, Mr. Cross, certainly has not carried any weight to solve the problems of illegal fraternities and ongoing associated noise, etc., as outlined in the Grand Jury report, even though the City represents an argument that SCLC is an inclusive avenue that does solve neighborhood town- gown problems. That narrative is false, and those issues brough up by Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre and Mr. Cross have been ignored by the SCLC overall. Discourse is a necessary part of the purpose of the SCLC. If each member is appointed by Cal Poly and City leadership without giving residents affected by college students in their neighborhoods, it defeats the intended purpose and mission of SCLC and becomes another political group with “elected” members associated with the majority. There should be more impacted residents on the SCLC to bring parity and real solutions to the issues felt by the neighborhoods in the northern part of the City. Otherwise, it is disingenous for the City to represent that Representatives concerned for the neighborhoods who have spoken out about neighborhood issuses are "heard" or have any impact on the problems outlined in the Grand Jury report. Thank you for your consideration. -Kathie Walker 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 6:23 AM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Hi Kathie, Thanks for your email. I appreciate you sharing your concerns as always. There is too much to respond directly to in your email, but I will say that I attended both my assigned meetings of the SCLC earlier this year and happen to have had the opportunity to participate three meetings in a row, before the St. Patrick’s Day just by coincidence of my assigned meeting this year and last. At all the meetings, there was critical discussion and constructive feedback provided and I believe all this (and many other complimentary efforts) contributed to the largely much more contained events this past holiday. It was a constructive discussion effort that, while everyone did not always agree, resulted positively and put us, together, on a path to more future improvements. If we can all keep approaching these challenges constructively, we will get where we want to go together. That said, because there is so much in your email, I am not clear of what your actual request or question is. If you would like to give me two or three sentences on any specific requests you have, I will be happy to try and respond or get answers. Thank you, Michelle From: kathie walker < Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 8:03:56 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Dear City Councilmembers, The Agenda item 8a for the meeting on July 15, 2025, has some "Background" that lists some "approaches by the City that have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings," and it lists the SCLC meetings as one of the approaches. I want to address some of the items on the list separately, starting with the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC). Considering the SCLC is referenced in the City’s response to the Grand Jury and the Agenda as one of the resources to help solve neighborhood issues, there is value in the historical context of SCLC and the relatively recent evolution. Here are some of the important developments to consider: The SCLC was formed in 1987 “to address issues regarding the community and Cal Poly students,” according to its original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Cuesta College was included in 1988. The original purpose and “mission statement” of the committee were to address issues regarding the community and college students. 2 However, portions of the MOU were recently revised by Police Chief Rick Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford, as covered in greater detail below. The Legislative edits showing the MOU before and after it was edited is attache d to this email. History of Neighborhood Representatives on the SCLC The previous MOU, before it was revised, listed members of SCLC from Cal Poly, Cuesta, the City of San Luis Obispo, the 5 th District Supervisor and community members including one seat for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) and two seats for other residents which are to be appointed by the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations ”. The “Resident Organizations” referred to organized neighborhoods such as Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Monterey Heights Neighborhood Association (MHNA), and Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF). Those two additional seats for residents impacted by college students in their neighborhood were added in 2016, based on the recommendation of the city council after the Civility-Neighborhood Wellness Report was presented to the council in 2015. Christine Wallace of SLOPD made the presentation. She was then the Neighborhood Outreach Manager and is now the Police Public Affairs Manager and is a voting member of the SCLC. The SCLC updated their MOU in January 2019 to read: “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations shall: Appoint one member from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods; Appoint one member to represent Geographic Neighborhood Association; and Appoint one community member-at-large...” The voting members on SCLC are mostly associated with Cal Poly and Cuesta College. The expansion of two residents' seats on SCLC was to give parity to those residents who are impacted by college students living in the neighborhoods, and to support one another to bring issues forward to be addressed during committee meetings, as stated by the City Council when the SCLC was expanded to include the two additional seats. Some seats were vacant following inconsistent SCLC meetings during the COVID-19 shutdown, including the two resident seats appointed by the Resident Organizations. The two seats were not formally listed as vacant until the SCLC meeting in January 2023. At the SCLC meeting in March 2023, the Resident Organizations brought forward two residents for appointments to the two seats, as is their right per the MOU at that time: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, who lives in the Neighborhoods North of Foothill geographic area, and Lydia Mourenza who has advocated for neighborhood wellness and also lives in the northern part of the city. During the same meeting, San Luis Obispo mayor Erica Stewart recommended that Abe Lincoln be appointed to one of the resident seats, although Mr. Lincoln is not affiliated with the Resident Organizations and was not recommended by them. Mr. Lincoln lives in the Arbors development, which is not affected by issues such as noisy parties and disturbances by college-aged students, and he had never advocated on behalf of any neighborhood association related to neighborhood wellness or the adverse impact of college students in their neighborhood. Mr. Lincoln’s neighborhood has an HOA that prevents the sort of disturbances experienced by college student-impacted neighborhoods. During the March 2023 meeting, Mayor Stewart made a motion to appoint Abe Lincoln. Christine Wallace seconded the motion, and it was passed, which gave Mr. Lincoln one of the seats that were supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations according to SCLC's MOU. Although the Resident Organizations had two people at the meeting that they planned to appoint to the two seats, the SCLC rejected one of their appointments (Lydia Mourenza), contrary to the provisions of the MOU. Notably, Ms. Wallace gave the presentation of the Civility Report to the City Council in 2015, where all five council members recommended the expansion of SCLC by two seats, and each council member said that they should be residents who are concerned with the town gown relationship with the impacts by college students in their neighborhood. 3 Ms. Wallace was also present at the SCLC meeting in January 2019, when the MOU was modified to give the power of appointment of the three “resident” seats to the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. In May 2023, Sandra Rowley went to the SCLC meeting to correct the mistake. She is the chair of RQN and is in communication with the chairs of Resident Organizations such as AVNA, NNOF, etc. Ms. Rowley read the terms of the MOU out loud and pointed out that Mr. Lincoln was illegally appointed to a seat that is supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations. She asked him to step down so the Resident Organizations could appoint their representative, according to the terms of the MOU. Mr. Lincoln refused and posted about the situation on his Facebook page, claiming he was “appointed” by the mayor, Erica Stewart, instead of them [RQN’s appointed person], and he had no intention to step down with the hashtag #smalltownpolitics. In the comments of his Facebook post, Mr. Lincoln criticized another Representative [RQN Board Member Brett Cross], saying: “in the two meetings I have attended a fair amount of time is spent by one individual complaining about the students. I am aiming to try to help change that tone.” And in another comment, he said, “I did mention bringing back Mardi Gras in my first meeting. Maybe that’s what caused the alarm *laughing emoji*” 4 Indeed, Mr. Lincoln has continued to criticize those who have brought up the problems related to noise from illegal fraternities during SCLC meetings and read a prepared statement condemning me and my husband, specifically calling out the website “How to Ruin a Neighborhood”. He has never engaged in any discussion about the noise and problems experienced by those living in the northern part of the city, and such issues were the original intent of the SCLC. The SCLC meetings were recorded so there is no confusion about what has been said during the meetings. When the city council discussed expanding SCLC in 2015, to include two additional seats for residents, they commented that it would be good for the lone community resident on SCLC at that time - the RQN representative – because the RQN representative would feel supported by the two additional residents impacted by college students who would fill the two new seats on the committee. Obviously, Mr. Lincoln’s criticism has not been supportive and is not consistent with the purpose of the seat he is occupying, especially according to the directives of the City Council in 2015. When Ms. Rowley pointed out SCLC’s failure to follow the MOU to appoint Lydia Mourenza to the then-City Manager, she was referred to the Police Chief to resolve the issue. There was some discussion between Ms. Rowley and Chief Scott about a resolution before the fall of 2023, and Chief Scott indicated there could be a resolution to allow a resident who lives in an impacted neighborhood to be appointed to SCLC. However, when the matter was brought up by Ms. Rowley during the first SCLC meeting in August 2024, Chief Scott was silent on the matter, and it was not corrected. Then, Chief Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford revised the MOU to exclude the Resident Organizations’ ability to appoint representatives to the two “resident” seats. The edits eliminated the two seats appointed by the “Resident Organizations” and gave the power to SCLC to elect the residents that SCLC (mostly Cal Poly and City representatives) agree to. A Google doc shows the edits made by both Chief Scott and Ms. Crawford in the right hand column of the document. The revised MOU took away the appointed seats from the organized neighborhood groups who are most impacted by issues related to college students living in their neighborhood. Every other seat in SLCL is “provided” by the City, County, Cal Poly, or Cuesta, and some members are “appointed”, as listed in the MOU. None of those seats are elected by the SCLC. Now, under the terms of the rewritten MOU, the seats for residents are decided by a popularity contest for those who have connections with city leadership, like Mr. Lincoln who was brought forward by the mayor of SLO, even though his is not affili ated with any organized neighborhood group who works for neighborhood wellness related to the negative impacts of college student-issues. It seems that the original intent of SCLC has been pushed aside for a more political “public relations” type agenda. For example, the problem with the illegal fraternity operations within single-family neighborhoods was brought up by the RQN Representative and/or Geographical Neighborhood Representative during 2023-2024 and every SCLC meeting during 2024-2025 and was never put on the agenda or discussed. The situation today in 2025 is worse than it was in 2023, with more illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods than ever. Unless there is significant pushback from multiple SCLC members, Cal Poly does not engage in solving serious problems. For example, during the first meeting of the academic year in August 2024, the City Manager and others listed St. Fratty’s / St. 5 Patrick’s Day as an important initiative to be discussed for the 2024-2025 academic year. During the next meeting in September 2024, the chair, Cal Poly ASI president Ashley Spragins, presented the list of initiatives for the year and it did not include St. Fratty's / St. Patrick's Day. Ms. McDonald pointed out that St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day was missing from the list of initiatives, and Ms. Spragins pulle d out a hard copy of the newer MOU and read the revised first sentence, "SCLC will serve as a mechanism of communication among Cal Poly, the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis Obispo community, to develop and strengthen town gown relationships." She then questioned how the St. Patrick’s Day problem aligned with that statement. The implication was that it did not, and it was apparent that the issue was intentionally left off the list of initiatives because Cal Poly did not want to address it. There was significant pushback from City representatives, including the City Manager, Whitney McDonald, Councilmember Andy Pease, Mayor Erica Stewart, Christine Wallace, and the two Neighborhood Representatives for Geographical Neighborhoods and RQN. Ms. Spragins finally gave in and added it to the list of initiatives. Ms. McDonald asked that Cal Poly provide a report about St. Patrick’s Day plans as a standing item on the SCLC agenda. Without that pushback, the item would not have been included as an SCLC initiative for last academic year 2024-2025. This highlights the heart of the matter, which is that the concerns of the two Representatives in the extreme minority speak out about real issues in the neighborhoods near Cal Poly are never agendized or addressed by the SCLC. Those Representatives are also not supported by the City Representatives on SCLC and have been criticized by other members of SCLC for stating their concerns. It seems like SCLC is pointless when it comes to solving meaningful neighborhood issues, which was the original purpose of the SCLC and was emphasized in the Civility Report in 2015. The problem was amplified when MOU eliminated the ability of the “Resident Organizations” to appoint two representatives independent of Cal Poly, Cuesta, and the City. The context and reasoning for that rule were explained to Police Chief Scott, but were ignored when he revised the MOU with Ms. Crawford. The limited voice of the Geographical Neighborhood, Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre, and RQN Representative, Mr. Cross, certainly has not carried any weight to solve the problems of illegal fraternities and ongoing associated noise, etc., as outlined in the Grand Jury report, even though the City represents an argument that SCLC is an inclusive avenue that does solve neighborhood town- gown problems. That narrative is false, and those issues brough up by Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre and Mr. Cross have been ignored by the SCLC overall. Discourse is a necessary part of the purpose of the SCLC. If each member is appointed by Cal Poly and City leadership without giving residents affected by college students in their neighborhoods, it defeats the intended purpose and mission of SCLC and becomes another political group with “elected” members associated with the majority. There should be more impacted residents on the SCLC to bring parity and real solutions to the issues felt by the neighborhoods in the northern part of the City. Otherwise, it is disingenous for the City to represent that Representatives concerned for the neighborhoods who have spoken out about neighborhood issuses are "heard" or have any impact on the problems outlined in the Grand Jury report. Thank you for your consideration. -Kathie Walker 1 From:Armas, Sara Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 8:42 AM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Hi Kathie, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the July 15th City Council Regular Meeting. Regards, Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E SArmas@slocity.org T 805.781.7110 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 8:04 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Dear City Councilmembers, The Agenda item 8a for the meeting on July 15, 2025, has some "Background" that lists some "approaches by the City that have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings," and it lists the SCLC meetings as one of the approaches. I want to address some of the items on the list separately, starting with the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC). Considering the SCLC is referenced in the City’s response to the Grand Jury and the Agenda as one of the resources to help solve neighborhood issues, there is value in the historical context of SCLC and the relatively recent evolution. Here are some of the important developments to consider: The SCLC was formed in 1987 “to address issues regarding the community and Cal Poly students,” according to its original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Cuesta College was included in 1988. The original purpose and “mission statement” of the committee were to address issues regarding the community and college students. 2 However, portions of the MOU were recently revised by Police Chief Rick Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford, as covered in greater detail below. The Legislative edits showing the MOU before and after it was edited is attache d to this email. History of Neighborhood Representatives on the SCLC The previous MOU, before it was revised, listed members of SCLC from Cal Poly, Cuesta, the City of San Luis Obispo, the 5 th District Supervisor and community members including one seat for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) and two seats for other residents which are to be appointed by the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations ”. The “Resident Organizations” referred to organized neighborhoods such as Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Monterey Heights Neighborhood Association (MHNA), and Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF). Those two additional seats for residents impacted by college students in their neighborhood were added in 2016, based on the recommendation of the city council after the Civility-Neighborhood Wellness Report was presented to the council in 2015. Christine Wallace of SLOPD made the presentation. She was then the Neighborhood Outreach Manager and is now the Police Public Affairs Manager and is a voting member of the SCLC. The SCLC updated their MOU in January 2019 to read: “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations shall: Appoint one member from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods; Appoint one member to represent Geographic Neighborhood Association; and Appoint one community member-at-large...” The voting members on SCLC are mostly associated with Cal Poly and Cuesta College. The expansion of two residents' seats on SCLC was to give parity to those residents who are impacted by college students living in the neighborhoods, and to support one another to bring issues forward to be addressed during committee meetings, as stated by the City Council when the SCLC was expanded to include the two additional seats. Some seats were vacant following inconsistent SCLC meetings during the COVID-19 shutdown, including the two resident seats appointed by the Resident Organizations. The two seats were not formally listed as vacant until the SCLC meeting in January 2023. At the SCLC meeting in March 2023, the Resident Organizations brought forward two residents for appointments to the two seats, as is their right per the MOU at that time: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, who lives in the Neighborhoods North of Foothill geographic area, and Lydia Mourenza who has advocated for neighborhood wellness and also lives in the northern part of the city. During the same meeting, San Luis Obispo mayor Erica Stewart recommended that Abe Lincoln be appointed to one of the resident seats, although Mr. Lincoln is not affiliated with the Resident Organizations and was not recommended by them. Mr. Lincoln lives in the Arbors development, which is not affected by issues such as noisy parties and disturbances by college-aged students, and he had never advocated on behalf of any neighborhood association related to neighborhood wellness or the adverse impact of college students in their neighborhood. Mr. Lincoln’s neighborhood has an HOA that prevents the sort of disturbances experienced by college student-impacted neighborhoods. During the March 2023 meeting, Mayor Stewart made a motion to appoint Abe Lincoln. Christine Wallace seconded the motion, and it was passed, which gave Mr. Lincoln one of the seats that were supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations according to SCLC's MOU. Although the Resident Organizations had two people at the meeting that they planned to appoint to the two seats, the SCLC rejected one of their appointments (Lydia Mourenza), contrary to the provisions of the MOU. Notably, Ms. Wallace gave the presentation of the Civility Report to the City Council in 2015, where all five council members recommended the expansion of SCLC by two seats, and each council member said that they should be residents who are concerned with the town gown relationship with the impacts by college students in their neighborhood. 3 Ms. Wallace was also present at the SCLC meeting in January 2019, when the MOU was modified to give the power of appointment of the three “resident” seats to the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. In May 2023, Sandra Rowley went to the SCLC meeting to correct the mistake. She is the chair of RQN and is in communication with the chairs of Resident Organizations such as AVNA, NNOF, etc. Ms. Rowley read the terms of the MOU out loud and pointed out that Mr. Lincoln was illegally appointed to a seat that is supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations. She asked him to step down so the Resident Organizations could appoint their representative, according to the terms of the MOU. Mr. Lincoln refused and posted about the situation on his Facebook page, claiming he was “appointed” by the mayor, Erica Stewart, instead of them [RQN’s appointed person], and he had no intention to step down with the hashtag #smalltownpolitics. In the comments of his Facebook post, Mr. Lincoln criticized another Representative [RQN Board Member Brett Cross], saying: “in the two meetings I have attended a fair amount of time is spent by one individual complaining about the students. I am aiming to try to help change that tone.” And in another comment, he said, “I did mention bringing back Mardi Gras in my first meeting. Maybe that’s what caused the alarm *laughing emoji*” 4 Indeed, Mr. Lincoln has continued to criticize those who have brought up the problems related to noise from illegal fraternities during SCLC meetings and read a prepared statement condemning me and my husband, specifically calling out the website “How to Ruin a Neighborhood”. He has never engaged in any discussion about the noise and problems experienced by those living in the northern part of the city, and such issues were the original intent of the SCLC. The SCLC meetings were recorded so there is no confusion about what has been said during the meetings. When the city council discussed expanding SCLC in 2015, to include two additional seats for residents, they commented that it would be good for the lone community resident on SCLC at that time - the RQN representative – because the RQN representative would feel supported by the two additional residents impacted by college students who would fill the two new seats on the committee. Obviously, Mr. Lincoln’s criticism has not been supportive and is not consistent with the purpose of the seat he is occupying, especially according to the directives of the City Council in 2015. When Ms. Rowley pointed out SCLC’s failure to follow the MOU to appoint Lydia Mourenza to the then-City Manager, she was referred to the Police Chief to resolve the issue. There was some discussion between Ms. Rowley and Chief Scott about a resolution before the fall of 2023, and Chief Scott indicated there could be a resolution to allow a resident who lives in an impacted neighborhood to be appointed to SCLC. However, when the matter was brought up by Ms. Rowley during the first SCLC meeting in August 2024, Chief Scott was silent on the matter, and it was not corrected. Then, Chief Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford revised the MOU to exclude the Resident Organizations’ ability to appoint representatives to the two “resident” seats. The edits eliminated the two seats appointed by the “Resident Organizations” and gave the power to SCLC to elect the residents that SCLC (mostly Cal Poly and City representatives) agree to. A Google doc shows the edits made by both Chief Scott and Ms. Crawford in the right hand column of the document. The revised MOU took away the appointed seats from the organized neighborhood groups who are most impacted by issues related to college students living in their neighborhood. Every other seat in SLCL is “provided” by the City, County, Cal Poly, or Cuesta, and some members are “appointed”, as listed in the MOU. None of those seats are elected by the SCLC. Now, under the terms of the rewritten MOU, the seats for residents are decided by a popularity contest for those who have connections with city leadership, like Mr. Lincoln who was brought forward by the mayor of SLO, even though his is not affili ated with any organized neighborhood group who works for neighborhood wellness related to the negative impacts of college student-issues. It seems that the original intent of SCLC has been pushed aside for a more political “public relations” type agenda. For example, the problem with the illegal fraternity operations within single-family neighborhoods was brought up by the RQN Representative and/or Geographical Neighborhood Representative during 2023-2024 and every SCLC meeting during 2024-2025 and was never put on the agenda or discussed. The situation today in 2025 is worse than it was in 2023, with more illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods than ever. Unless there is significant pushback from multiple SCLC members, Cal Poly does not engage in solving serious problems. For example, during the first meeting of the academic year in August 2024, the City Manager and others listed St. Fratty’s / St. 5 Patrick’s Day as an important initiative to be discussed for the 2024-2025 academic year. During the next meeting in September 2024, the chair, Cal Poly ASI president Ashley Spragins, presented the list of initiatives for the year and it did not include St. Fratty's / St. Patrick's Day. Ms. McDonald pointed out that St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day was missing from the list of initiatives, and Ms. Spragins pulle d out a hard copy of the newer MOU and read the revised first sentence, "SCLC will serve as a mechanism of communication among Cal Poly, the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis Obispo community, to develop and strengthen town gown relationships." She then questioned how the St. Patrick’s Day problem aligned with that statement. The implication was that it did not, and it was apparent that the issue was intentionally left off the list of initiatives because Cal Poly did not want to address it. There was significant pushback from City representatives, including the City Manager, Whitney McDonald, Councilmember Andy Pease, Mayor Erica Stewart, Christine Wallace, and the two Neighborhood Representatives for Geographical Neighborhoods and RQN. Ms. Spragins finally gave in and added it to the list of initiatives. Ms. McDonald asked that Cal Poly provide a report about St. Patrick’s Day plans as a standing item on the SCLC agenda. Without that pushback, the item would not have been included as an SCLC initiative for last academic year 2024-2025. This highlights the heart of the matter, which is that the concerns of the two Representatives in the extreme minority speak out about real issues in the neighborhoods near Cal Poly are never agendized or addressed by the SCLC. Those Representatives are also not supported by the City Representatives on SCLC and have been criticized by other members of SCLC for stating their concerns. It seems like SCLC is pointless when it comes to solving meaningful neighborhood issues, which was the original purpose of the SCLC and was emphasized in the Civility Report in 2015. The problem was amplified when MOU eliminated the ability of the “Resident Organizations” to appoint two representatives independent of Cal Poly, Cuesta, and the City. The context and reasoning for that rule were explained to Police Chief Scott, but were ignored when he revised the MOU with Ms. Crawford. The limited voice of the Geographical Neighborhood, Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre, and RQN Representative, Mr. Cross, certainly has not carried any weight to solve the problems of illegal fraternities and ongoing associated noise, etc., as outlined in the Grand Jury report, even though the City represents an argument that SCLC is an inclusive avenue that does solve neighborhood town- gown problems. That narrative is false, and those issues brough up by Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre and Mr. Cross have been ignored by the SCLC overall. Discourse is a necessary part of the purpose of the SCLC. If each member is appointed by Cal Poly and City leadership without giving residents affected by college students in their neighborhoods, it defeats the intended purpose and mission of SCLC and becomes another political group with “elected” members associated with the majority. There should be more impacted residents on the SCLC to bring parity and real solutions to the issues felt by the neighborhoods in the northern part of the City. Otherwise, it is disingenous for the City to represent that Representatives concerned for the neighborhoods who have spoken out about neighborhood issuses are "heard" or have any impact on the problems outlined in the Grand Jury report. Thank you for your consideration. -Kathie Walker 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Saturday, July 12, 2025 3:14 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: SCLC: Purpose and Parity I’m sorry for the loss of your mother. I am sure the pain is unbearable. Hang in there. From: kathie walker < Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 10:07 AM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Hi Michelle, Thank you for your response. Yes, it is true that there was discssion about the specific St. Fratty's/St. Patrick's Day event, after some arm- twisting to have the issue included as an initiative for 2024-2025. However, the larger issue and the main factors addessed by the Grand Jury within the four chapters of its report are related to the dozens of illegal fraternities embedded in the residential neighborhoods that cause absolute mayhem and gravely affect the residents who live in these neighborhoods (and The Tribune article & Editorial by the Tribune Board related to the same issue). Those issues have never been agendized or discussed, even though it has been brought up during every SCLC meeting by two members who represent the neighborhoods. (The third member representing the neighborhoods has never brought up the issue and has criticized those who do.) To claim that SCLC has been a forum for actual discussion about this issue is not true. The two members have tried to discuss it and have hit a brick wall again and again. That's one of my points. I included some history for context, as I've seen the evolution of SCLC, and the Council was purposeful when it recommended the two additional seats for residents impacted by college students 10 years ago. Those seats should be appointed by the Neighborhood Groups, not elected by the SCLC, which is primarily Cal Poly and City representatives. Go back to the original intent of expanded the membership to include those two seats, and the Council was specific about the intent of those seats, tying them to residents in SLO who are impacted, and who would align with and support the RQN representative. That's another point that should be addressed. The City is defending against the Grand Jury report by citing the SCLC as a committee that "provides a forum for discussions of shared resident and student concerns and needs." It is not honest to allege that there is open discussion or any solutions for the neighborhood issues brought forward by Mila and Brett. The Grand Jury asked for, and I provided, the recordings of the SCLC meetings. They knew that St. Fratty's/St. Patrick's Day was a standing item on the agenda and heard the reports. That was only one of the issues in their report, which they commended Cal Poly and the City for solving in 2025. 2 They also heard the criticism toward Brett and Mila, and the stonewalling when trying to have the matter addressed by the committee. That is the bigger issue, and the neighborhood problems related to the fraternities are not getting solved. The intent of the Council when the two seats were added was for representatives who are impacted by college students or are involved in neighborhood groups to bring those issues forward. Sorry if I'm repetitive. We've been going through a lot. My mom died two weeks ago, and Steve and I have decided to leave the neighborhood. We are grieving. On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 6:23 AM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, Thanks for your email. I appreciate you sharing your concerns as always. There is too much to respond directly to in your email, but I will say that I attended both my assigned meetings of the SCLC earlier this year and happen to have had the opportunity to participate three meetings in a row, before the St. Patrick’s Day just by coincidence of my assigned meeting this year and last. At all the meetings, there was critical discussion and constructive feedback provided and I believe all this (and many other complimentary efforts) contributed to the largely much more contained events this past holiday. It was a constructive discussion effort that, while everyone did not always agree, resulted positively and put us, together, on a path to more future improvements. If we can all keep approaching these challenges constructively, we will get where we want to go together. That said, because there is so much in your email, I am not clear of what your actual request or question is. If you would like to give me two or three sentences on any specific requests you have, I will be happy to try and respond or get answers. Thank you, Michelle From: kathie walker < Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 8:03:56 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Dear City Councilmembers, The Agenda item 8a for the meeting on July 15, 2025, has some "Background" that lists some "approaches by the City that have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings," and it lists the SCLC meetings as one of the approaches. I want to address some of the items on the list separately, starting with the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC). Considering the SCLC is referenced in the City’s response to the Grand Jury and the Agenda as one of the resources to help solve neighborhood issues, there is value in the historical context of SCLC and the relatively recent evolution. Here are some of the important developments to consider: The SCLC was formed in 1987 “to address issues regarding the community and Cal Poly students,” according to its original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Cuesta College was included in 1988. The original purpose and “mission statement” of the committee were to address issues regarding the community and college students. 3 However, portions of the MOU were recently revised by Police Chief Rick Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford, as covered in greater detail below. The Legislative edits showing the MOU before and after it was edited is attached to this email. History of Neighborhood Representatives on the SCLC The previous MOU, before it was revised, listed members of SCLC from Cal Poly, Cuesta, the City of San Luis Obispo, the 5 th District Supervisor and community members including one seat for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) and two seats for other residents which are to be appointed by the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations ”. The “Resident Organizations” referred to organized neighborhoods such as Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Monterey Heights Neighborhood Association (MHNA), and Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF). Those two additional seats for residents impacted by college students in their neighborhood were added in 2016, based on the recommendation of the city council after the Civility-Neighborhood Wellness Report was presented to the council in 2015. Christine Wallace of SLOPD made the presentation. She was then the Neighborhood Outreach Manager and is now the Police Public Affairs Manager and is a voting member of the SCLC. The SCLC updated their MOU in January 2019 to read: “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations shall: Appoint one member from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods; Appoint one member to represent Geographic Neighborhood Association; and Appoint one community member-at-large...” The voting members on SCLC are mostly associated with Cal Poly and Cuesta College. The expansion of two residents' seats on SCLC was to give parity to those residents who are impacted by college students living in the neighborhoods, and to support one another to bring issues forward to be addressed during committee meetings, as stated by the City Council when the SCLC was expanded to include the two additional seats. Some seats were vacant following inconsistent SCLC meetings during the COVID-19 shutdown, including the two resident seats appointed by the Resident Organizations. The two seats were not formally listed as vacant until the SCLC meeting in January 2023. At the SCLC meeting in March 2023, the Resident Organizations brought forward two residents for appointments to the two seats, as is their right per the MOU at that time: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, who lives in the Neighborhoods North of Foothill geographic area, and Lydia Mourenza who has advocated for neighborhood wellness and also lives in the northern part of the city. During the same meeting, San Luis Obispo mayor Erica Stewart recommended that Abe Lincoln be appointed to one of the resident seats, although Mr. Lincoln is not affiliated with the Resident Organizations and was not recommended by them. Mr. Lincoln lives in the Arbors development, which is not affected by issues such as noisy parties and disturbances by college-aged students, and he had never advocated on behalf of any neighborhood association related to neighborhood wellness or the adverse impact of college students in their neighborhood. Mr. Lincoln’s neighborhood has an HOA that prevents the sort of disturbances experienced by college student-impacted neighborhoods. During the March 2023 meeting, Mayor Stewart made a motion to appoint Abe Lincoln. Christine Wallace seconded the motion, and it was passed, which gave Mr. Lincoln one of the seats that were supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations according to SCLC's MOU. Although the Resident Organizations had two people at the meeting that they planned to appoint to the two seats, the SCLC rejected one of their appointments (Lydia Mourenza), contrary to the provisions of the MOU. 4 Notably, Ms. Wallace gave the presentation of the Civility Report to the City Council in 2015, where all five council members recommended the expansion of SCLC by two seats, and each council member said that they should be residents who are concerned with the town gown relationship with the impacts by college students in their neighborhood. Ms. Wallace was also present at the SCLC meeting in January 2019, when the MOU was modified to give the power of appointment of the three “resident” seats to the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. In May 2023, Sandra Rowley went to the SCLC meeting to correct the mistake. She is the chair of RQN and is in communication with the chairs of Resident Organizations such as AVNA, NNOF, etc. Ms. Rowley read the terms of the MOU out loud and pointed out that Mr. Lincoln was illegally appointed to a seat that is supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations. She asked him to step down so the Resident Organizations could appoint their representative, according to the terms of the MOU. Mr. Lincoln refused and posted about the situation on his Facebook page, claiming he was “appointed” by the mayor, Erica Stewart, instead of them [RQN’s appointed person], and he had no intention to step down with the hashtag #smalltownpolitics. In the comments of his Facebook post, Mr. Lincoln criticized another Representative [RQN Board Member Brett Cross], saying: “in the two meetings I have attended a fair amount of time is spent by one individual complaining about the students. I am aiming to try to help change that tone.” And in another comment, he said, “I did mention bringing back Mardi Gras in my first meeting. Maybe that’s what caused the alarm *laughing emoji*” 5 Indeed, Mr. Lincoln has continued to criticize those who have brought up the problems related to noise from illegal fraternities during SCLC meetings and read a prepared statement condemning me and my husband, specifically calling out the website “How to Ruin a Neighborhood”. He has never engaged in any discussion about the noise and problems experienced by those living in the northern part of the city, and such issues were the original intent of the SCLC. The SCLC meetings were recorded so there is no confusion about what has been said during the meetings. When the city council discussed expanding SCLC in 2015, to include two additional seats for residents, they commented that it would be good for the lone community resident on SCLC at that time - the RQN representative – because the RQN representative would feel supported by the two additional residents impacted by college students who would fill the two new seats on the committee. Obviously, Mr. Lincoln’s criticism has not been supportive and is not consistent with the purpose of the seat he is occupying, especially according to the directives of the City Council in 2015. When Ms. Rowley pointed out SCLC’s failure to follow the MOU to appoint Lydia Mourenza to the then-City Manager, she was referred to the Police Chief to resolve the issue. There was some discussion between Ms. Rowley and Chief Scott about a resolution before the fall of 2023, and Chief Scott indicated there could be a resolution to allow a resident who lives in an impacted neighborhood to be appointed to SCLC. 6 However, when the matter was brought up by Ms. Rowley during the first SCLC meeting in August 2024, Chief Scott was silent on the matter, and it was not corrected. Then, Chief Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford revised the MOU to exclude the Resident Organizations’ ability to appoint representatives to the two “resident” seats. The edits eliminated the two seats appointed by the “Resident Organizations” and gave the power to SCLC to elect the residents that SCLC (mostly Cal Poly and City representatives) agree to. A Google doc shows the edits made by both Chief Scott and Ms. Crawford in the right hand column of the document. The revised MOU took away the appointed seats from the organized neighborhood groups who are most impacted by issues related to college students living in their neighborhood. Every other seat in SLCL is “provided” by the City, County, Cal Poly, or Cuesta, and some members are “appointed”, as listed in the MOU. None of those seats are elected by the SCLC. Now, under the terms of the rewritten MOU, the seats for residents are decided by a popularity contest for those who have connections with city leadership, like Mr. Lincoln who was brought forward by the mayor of SLO, even though his is not affiliated with any organized neighborhood group who works for neighborhood wellness related to the negative impacts of college student-issues. It seems that the original intent of SCLC has been pushed aside for a more political “public relations” type agenda. For exam ple, the problem with the illegal fraternity operations within single-family neighborhoods was brought up by the RQN Representative and/or Geographical Neighborhood Representative during 2023-2024 and every SCLC meeting during 2024- 2025 and was never put on the agenda or discussed. The situation today in 2025 is worse than it was in 2023, with more illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods than ever. Unless there is significant pushback from multiple SCLC members, Cal Poly does not engage in solving serious problems. For example, during the first meeting of the academic year in August 2024, the City Manager and others listed St. Fratty’s / St. Patrick’s Day as an important initiative to be discussed for the 2024-2025 academic year. During the next meeting in September 2024, the chair, Cal Poly ASI president Ashley Spragins, presented the list of initiatives for the year and it did not include St. Fratty's / St. Patrick's Day. Ms. McDonald pointed out that St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day was missing from the list of initiatives, and Ms. Spragins pulled out a hard copy of the newer MOU and read the revised first sentence, "SCLC will serve as a mechanism of communication among Cal Poly, the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis Obispo community, to develop and strengthen town gown relationships." She then questioned how the St. Patrick’s Day problem aligned with that statement. The implication was that it did not, and it was apparent that the issue was intentionally left off the list of initiatives because Cal Poly did not want to address it. There was significant pushback from City representatives, including the City Manager, Whitney McDonald, Councilmember Andy Pease, Mayor Erica Stewart, Christine Wallace, and the two Neighborhood Representatives for Geographical Neighborhoods and RQN. Ms. Spragins finally gave in and added it to the list of initiatives. Ms. McDonald asked that Cal Poly provide a report about St. Patrick’s Day plans as a standing item on the SCLC agenda. Without that pushback, the item would not have been included as an SCLC initiative for last academic year 2024-2025. 7 This highlights the heart of the matter, which is that the concerns of the two Representatives in the extreme minority speak out about real issues in the neighborhoods near Cal Poly are never agendized or addressed by the SCLC. Those Representatives are also not supported by the City Representatives on SCLC and have been criticized by other members of SCLC for stating their concerns. It seems like SCLC is pointless when it comes to solving meaningful neighborhood issues, which was the original purpose of the SCLC and was emphasized in the Civility Report in 2015. The problem was amplified when MOU eliminated the ability of the “Resident Organizations” to appoint two representatives independent of Cal Poly, Cuesta, and the City. The context and reasoning for that rule were explained to Police Chief Scott, but were ignored when he revised the MOU with Ms. Crawford. The limited voice of the Geographical Neighborhood, Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre, and RQN Representative, Mr. Cross, certainly has not carried any weight to solve the problems of illegal fraternities and ongoing associated noise, etc., as outlined in the Grand Jury report, even though the City represents an argument that SCLC is an inclusive avenue that does solve neighborhood town- gown problems. That narrative is false, and those issues brough up by Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre and Mr. Cross have been ignored by the SCLC overall. Discourse is a necessary part of the purpose of the SCLC. If each member is appointed by Cal Poly and City leadership without giving residents affected by college students in their neighborhoods, it defeats the intended purpose and mission of SCLC and becomes another political group with “elected” members associated with the majority. There should be more impacted residents on the SCLC to bring parity and real solutions to the issues felt by the neighborhoods in the northern part of the City. Otherwise, it is disingenous for the City to represent that Representatives concerned for the neighborhoods who have spoken out about neighborhood issuses are "heard" or have any impact on the problems outlined in the Grand Jury report. Thank you for your consideration. -Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Sunday, July 13, 2025 12:58 PM To:Marx, Jan; Francis, Emily; Boswell, Mike; Shoresman, Michelle; Stewart, Erica A; E-mail Council Website Subject:Ad Hoc Committee (Item 8a.) and clarification of "Background" provided in the agenda Attachments:St. Frattys 2022 Calls from Police Log to jpg.pdf Dear City Councilmembers, I have been closely following the City Council and policy decisions in San Luis Obispo for over a decade and have a good understanding of the historical context of several issues. There is value in understanding that history. When there is turnover in City leadership and new Councilmembers are elected, or new staff leadership is hired, they usually do not fully understand the complexities of the background that led to certain policies. Jan Marx is the most knowledgeable about the subject investigated by the Grand Jury. I have watched her input be dismissed at times, despite her expertise in these issues, which is unfortunate. When it comes to noise in the Alta Vista neighborhood, Ms. Marx lived it firsthand. It got worse after she moved away, and a lot more illegal fraternities moved into the neighborhood, but she is the most experienced person on the Council and is familiar with the relevant issues. Ms. Marx should be on the Ad Hoc Committee to respond to the Grand Jury. It appears that the mayor must comment according to California Penal Code 933. It’s not clear whether that means she would also be on the Ad Hoc committee. If so, she would be an asset. Otherwise, I recommend that the second member of the Ad Hoc Committee be Emily Francis or Mike Boswell. I feel that Jan’s input should be considered for who she feels would be the best fit to work together for this important role. Some of my reasons for not including Michelle Shoresman are included in the correspondence below. This is nothing personal against Michelle, and I think she is a nice person. However, she has failed to recognize the issue, has not supported Jan Marx’s attempt to have the item agendized (Erica Stewart did support the idea), has minimized the failure of the City, including Code Enforcement, to respond to complaints, among several other things that seems to indicate she is more aligned with City staff and Cal Poly than concerned about the constituents who elected her to represent them. The Council agenda for July 15, 2025, item 8a, lists the “Background” of the City’s efforts toward “neighborhood wellness”. Some of the information provided on the agenda is false. I want to provide the correct information so that the misinformation can be corrected. Also, I hope that you focus on the core issues that are relevant to the CURRENT situation by acknowledging the ext ent to which it exists. Programs and Policies The Background in the agenda says, “many of the approaches have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings,” and lists various programs and policies. We have lived in the neighborhood since the inception of these programs and policies, and can unequivocally tell you that despite each of the listed items, the noise exponentially increased in the Fall of 2021. This correlates to the significant increase i n illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood. Several fraternities moved near our home in 2021, and many were the Main Chapter houses of Cal Poly's fraternities. Even more moved in in the Fall of 2022, including one right next door and another directly across the street from our home. More were established in 2023, also near our home on Kentucky and Stafford (496 Kentucky and 1350 Stafford) and on Stafford (1271, 1273, and 1275 Stafford). And even more were added nearby in 2024, including 1276 Bond. That does not include the dozens of others, which I will not list here, but I have previously provided the addresses. Each of them held fraternity-related events throughout the year, including rush events and sorority exchanges. 2 The increased noise level in the Fall of 2021 was documented by first-hand accounts of long-term residents in several “neighborhood group” email exchanges. That’s when I started sending videos of fraternity parties to the City because loud parties at illegal fraternities that could be heard from a block away were being cleared by SLOPD as a negative violation or unable to locate. Prior to the Fall of 2021, I had never contacted SLOPD about noisy parties because they were not such a huge issue as they were beginning in the Fall of 2021. I never had any correspondence with SLOPD Chief Cantrell or Chief Linden whatsoever, because it was not necessary. I only sent one email to Chief Gessell related to the ongoing fireworks set off on Stafford at the rugby house, next to Sid and Isabel Marques. He was responsive and respectful and went to the house with the Fire Marshall. There was never another fireworks incident from that property. But since the Fall of 2021, the noise from the illegal fraternities has gotten progressively worse each year, and most of the long- term residents on the original email chain have left the neighborhood. I have corresponded with SLOPD leadership many, many times since then without resolution. It has been enormously frustrating. The issues have also been brought up in public forums such as the City Council and the SCLC, and the pushback and dishonesty from Police Chief Scott have been especially disheartening. Civility Report The City references the “Neighborhood Wellness Community Civility Working Group,” which worked on a plan for a couple of years to promote neighborhood wellness and produced a 90-page Final Report published in Spring 2015. There were six objectives in the Final Report. I have attached a condensed version, which was attached to a City Council Agenda on 12/1/2025, when the Council recommended expanding the SCLC to include two more residents who were “most directly involved with neighborhood wellness.” The Chair of the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Karen Adler, was one of two people on the working group to address Objective One. She is still the Chair of AVNA, and her home is also now surrounded by illegal fraternities. She has expressed her extreme displeasure with the lack of enforcement by the City of illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood. It is ridiculous for the City to continue to minimize the problem and not take meaningful action to fix it. Below are the six objectives from the Civility Report. None of the recommendations for Objective One, shown below, are currently implemented: 3 I am fairly certain that none of the recommendations in Objective Two related to neighborhood wellness are currently implemented, except maybe the City sends information to college students about trash collection. Of all the recommendations listed in Objective Three, the only item that I know is currently implemented is the party registr ation program. It should be noted that RQN opposed that policy when it was adopted and is still opposed to the program. When a party is registered, SLOPD does not respond, and the reporting party is told to call back in 20 minutes if the party is still going. Fraternities were registering parties with over 100 people, and the nearby neighbors were woken by the party, then had to call SLOPD, and there were no consequences. It’s essentially a ‘free pass’ to have a loud party. Also, live bands are sometimes registered, even though they are not allowed by the program, but they get a warning call, and there are no consequences. The neighborhood is still disturbed by the loud music and guests leaving after the party is broken up, which can last an hour. The SCLC is also listed as a collaborative measure; however, the MOU for SCLC was recently revised to dilute the original pur pose of addressing issues between college students and nearby neighborhoods, and the neighborhood representatives for geographical neighborhoods and member-at-large are now elected rather than appointed by the Neighborhood Associations. Last year, two SCLC members brought up the illegal fraternity issue at every single meeting, and it was never addressed within the SCLC. 4 5 Objective Four mostly relates to law enforcement between Cal Poly and the City. One item related to neighborhood wellness was assigned to SCLC to “change the student culture related to neighborhood wellness”. As discussed, the most significant issue related to noise issues in the neighborhoods near campus, spreading to other neighborhoods in northern SLO, has not been discussed at the SCLC despite being brought up during every meeting. 6 Objective Five has one item, and I am not convinced that the City has “effectively informed the community on matters of neighborhood wellness” in an annual communications plan, especially related to illegal fraternity operations, which are the largest negative impact on affected neighborhoods. Objective Six is solely about SCLC. The action item of shifting memberships “to directly involve those individuals most directly involved in neighborhood wellness” is not currently happening. Aside from one RQN representative, there are only two 'neighborhood representatives', including the neighborhood-at-large representative, Abe Lincoln. He does not live in an affected neighborhood, does not belong to any group related to neighborhood wellness, and has criticized other representatives and community members for bringing up problems with noise and the illegal fraternity operations in the neighborhoods. Abe is a nice guy, but does not meet the qualifications intended for the seat he is occupying, and the proposed representative by the 7 Neighborhood Groups was rejected, even though they did meet the qualifications of the seat, and the MOU said that the Neighborhood Groups shall appoint that member. The perspective from neighborhoods most directly involved with noise is extremely diluted by the larger membership of Cal Poly and City representatives. The other two action items of an annual report and a town hall are not currently implemented. The SCLC meetings are subject to the Brown Act, but are not recorded and archived for the public, but they should be. Cal Poly Did Not Enforce the Zoning Ordinance When It Knew of the Illegal Fraternities in 2015 The City Council, City Manager, and other leadership knew about the small number of illegal fraternities on Hathway Avenue in 2015 because after the roof collapse on St. Fratty’s Day that year, Cal Poly hired an independent agency to investigate the incident. The report cited fraternities at 348 Hathway and “others” also on Hathway. That report was presented to the City Council and is included in an Agenda in 2015. SLOPD has also been aware of the illegal fraternity houses on Hathway since that time. Christine Wallace has said that the police department was very familiar with the identified Greek houses on Hathway dating back many years. Nonetheless, the City failed to enforce the zoning regulations in 2015 and set the stage for an explosion of more illegal fra ternity houses moving into the neighborhood. The fraternity members probably thought it was legal for them to operate because the City never took any proactive measures to stop their operations. Today, there are over 40 illegal fraternities in Alta Vista, and several others in Monterey Heights. There are also some west of Santa Rosa/Hwy 1. Cal Poly and Its Fraternities are Intentionally Breaking the Law For the past two academic years, Cal Poly administration, Greek Life staff, and IFC leadership have known it is not legal for them to operate in R1/R2 neighborhoods, but they have ignored the City’s laws. They host rush events to recruit new members and regularly hold blow-out fraternity events at their illegal fraternities in residential neighborhoods. We know these events are “fraternity-related” because they follow certain protocols, as required by Cal Poly Greek Life’s Event Registration Policy. Some indicators are fraternity member 'guards' at the front door wearing construction vests or shirts that say “security”, and they check in guests with laptops. I am certain that SLOPD is also familiar with these practices. The guests that go to the parties are 90% female and often are dressed in similar colors or themes, which indicates they are "exchanges" and registered beforehand with Cal Poly. The fraternities also post photos of events on Instagram at the illegal fraternity houses, whose 8 addresses have been previously documented by the City and which have identifiable features on their homes that are seen in the photos. Most of the Main Chapter Houses for Cal Poly’s 19 fraternities are in R1/R2 neighborhoods. Decrease in Noise vs. Increase in Illegal Fraternities The Background in the agenda cites a 45% decrease in noise complaints to SLOPD since 2010. This argument is a red herring to divert attention from the current issue and attempts to distract from the fact that the problem is ongoing and unresolved in the neighborhoods in the northern part of SLO, which is the subject of the Grand Jury’s report. In 2010, there were not 50+ illegal fraternity houses, and the noise complaints to SLOPD did not regularly include parties of 100-300 people in single-family neighborhoods, as they do today! Context matters. Some weekends, nearly 50% of all noise calls citywide are from fraternities, mostly illegally operating in the single-family neighborhoods. Also, many of the long-term residents have moved from these neighborhoods because they could not tolerate the noise from these illegal fraternity operations. It is disingenuous to minimize the immense problem that the residents of these neighborhoods endure every weekend that Cal Poly is in session, which was witnessed firsthand by the members of the Grand Jury. The City should admit there’s a problem, accept the recommendations, and move forward. Let’s work to solve the issue and hold those who are responsible accountable so the people who live in the neighborhoods can have the quiet enjoyment of their homes. DACs & Citations Are Usually Not Accurate When a DAC or noise citation is issued, the number of guests at a party is self-reported to SNAP or SLOPD by the person receiving the DAC or noise citation. For example, Delta Upsilon has an illegal fraternity house at 281 Albert Drive, and they hosted a concert there in May 2025. There were HUNDREDS of people in the backyard. You can see the party in a 1-minute video on their Instagram page here: https://www.instagram.com/p/DJXia7Uh8kO/?img_index=1 or here: https://vimeo.com/1094575248?share=copy#t=0 I SLOPD issued a noise citation to a Delta Upsilon fraternity member at 281 Albert Drive, and the citation said there were 50 people at that concert/party when there were actually at least 300 people. Law enforcement does not enter yards or count people. They ask the person getting the citation how many people are at the event, so the number on the citation is often not accurate, as people will say there is a lower number than the actual number of guests. It also does not reflect the impact of the event on the neighborhood. If the City is using this “data,” just know that it is self-reported by the offender and is not necessarily accurate. One other important point is that parties like the one shown in the video are common in the neighborhood and are rarely cited as unruly gatherings. There are parties that meet the legal standard of unruly gatherings every weekend that Cal Poly is in session, but very few are cited as unruly gatherings. Sometimes, SNAP responds to documented illegal fraternity houses that received letters from Code Enforcement, so a citation can’t even be issued unless SNAP calls SLOPD, but they usually don’t. If SLOPD were to cite these parties as unruly gatherings (which they are, according to the SLOMC), it would likely make an impact to stop them from continuing. Street Closure During St. Fratty’s Day 2022 In the agenda for 7/15/2025, the City claims, “It was not until 2023 that any extended street closure occurred in response to the party…” That is false. The neighborhood streets were barricaded by SLOPD in 2022 when about 2,000 people overtook the streets near our home. On March 12, 2022, St. Fratty’s Day, we were woken by fireworks at 4 a.m. Loud music was coming from MANY houses in the neighborhood because the party was pre-planned, according to many social media posts made on Friday, March 11, 2022, that talked about the St. Fratty’s Day party on Hathway in the early morning hours the next day. By 6 a.m., the intersection at Bond and Hathway was completely overtaken by the illegal street party, and people spanned from Fredericks to Carpenter and up Bond toward Kentucky Street. It was still dark outside, and I took a video of the crowd with my phone. 9 By around 7 a.m., SLOPD officers had blocked off the neighborhood with their vehicles. SLOPD had barricaded Hathway Avenue from Fredericks Street to Carpenter, and Bond Street was barricaded from Hathway Avenue to Kentucky Street. Officers at Fredericks and Hathway told me they had called their supervisor to the scene. I sent a timeline to the City Council of the SLOPD log from that morning to show the number of calls to our neighborhood. Some calls went unanswered for hours because there were not enough officers on duty to respond. Two of the calls I made to SLOPD did not even show up on the police log, including for a party at 348 Hathway, where many people were partying on the roof. It was one of the worst offenders that morning, and there was no response from SLOPD. My neighbor on Hathway also told me he called SLOPD, and his call was not listed. The log is attached to this email. Michelle Shoresman’s response to my email seemed to indicate that my “standards” were not realistic and that SLOPD had adequately handled the matter: “Thanks for the call log. I know you are frustrated and probably don’t think it’s sufficient, but I do happen to note that there are a large number of citations that were made, and even several arrests. I would think this is likely an improvement over past years, even if not still “enough” by your standards.” The truth is that the response in 2022 was not an improvement over past years because our neighborhood was not overtaken by thousands of people for an illegal street party before or after St. Fratty’s Day 2015, when a roof collapsed and ended the party by 6:30 a.m. In any event, the neighborhood streets were barricaded by SLOPD during St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, so hopefully the record is corrected. SLOPD Chief Rick Scott’s Statements to the Council Were Not True Since 2022, the SLOPD Chief Rick Scott has often falsely claimed that this event was “historically” large, as though it had happened in previous years after the roof collapse, but that is not true. We have lived in the neighborhood since St. Fratty’s Day was “founded” in 2009 by a fraternity at 348 Hathway Ave. It was not a street party until 2015, when the roof collapsed at around 6:15 a.m. It seems the Police Chief makes blanket statements, as though there have been illegal street parties during St. Fratty’s Day all along, to deflect the responsibility that, under his leadership, the neighborhood was taken over by thousands of people in 2022, 2023, and 2024. At a Council meeting on 3/15/2022, after St. Fratty’s Day, Chief Scott debriefed the Council: “We have been planning for St. Patrick’s Day for some time now…” and he minimized the magnitude of the event. He said it took “a couple of hours to get the situation under control,” when it actually lasted almost 6 hours, beginning at 4 a.m. He claimed SLOPD was “staffed up” for the event, anticipating crowds similar to numbers before the COVID-19 shutdown. SLOPD did not have additional staff that morning, and Deputy Chief Mickel explained that they were lucky that it happened near shift change, so they could hold over the night officers as the day officers came on duty. (DC Mickel was honest and transparent about the situation, and we appreciate him very much.) St. Fratty’s Day reemerged in 2022 and progressively got worse until it was finally stopped in 2025. The Grand Jury was corre ct in its finding that the event was not handled appropriately in 2022, 2023, and 2024 because SLOPD did not have enough staff to adequately handle the event. DC Mickel admitted that SLOPD was not prepared in 2023 during an RQN meeting. He also referenced the mistakes and failure of SLOPD to fully prepare in previous years (2022-2024) during his presentation to the Council on SLOPD’s plans for 2025. Council Meeting on March 15, 2022, after St. Fratty’s Day 2022 (before St. Patrick’s Day on March 17) During the Council meeting on 3/15/2022, Jan Marx asked that the Council agendize St. Fratty’s Day for discussion. While Erica Stewart supported a future conversation on an agenda, Michelle Shoresman did not support Ms. Marx’s suggestion. Ms. Shoresman said she didn’t want to agendize discussion on the expansion of the Safety Enhancement Zone to include St. Fratty’s Day and said “putting it in the bike rack” would work best for her. 10 It was disappointing that Ms. Shoresman did not give credit to Ms. Marx’s first-hand experience with the event and did not support even a discussion of the matter on a future agenda. Carlyn Christianson was also adamant in not agendizing the item, saying the trend was downwards and was of no concern. Emily Francis and Mike Boswell were not on the City Council then. Warning Before St. Fratty’s 2023 That Was Ignored and SLOPD Was Not Prepared St. Fratty’s Day is typically held on the Saturday before winter finals, and not necessarily the Saturday before St. Patrick’s Day. The event is centered around finals because many students leave town during the week of finals, and the students want to par ty while most are still in town. This should be noted for future years, since Cal Poly is converting to a semester system. In July 2022, I warned the City and SLOPD about St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s Day occurring on Friday/Saturday on the same weekend in 2023 and sent the graphic below to show the perfect-storm scenario that would likely result in an expansion and surge of partiers for St. Fratty’s Day. I thought that the failure to have an aggressive plan would result in legitimizing the event, which would cause the event to continue to gain traction and grow. Looking back, I believe the failure of SLOPD to have an adequate plan in 2023 set in motion the exponential growth of the event the following year. At that point, in 2024, it was too late for a Safety Enhancement Zone to have any meaningful effect. St. Fratty’s Day 2023 During the morning of St. Fratty’s Day 2023, SLOPD was not prepared for the incredibly large crowd of 3,000-4,000 people that showed up. You can watch a video from the event here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYkaOsCwBbA Again, during his debrief to the City Council after the event, Chief Scott did not admit that SLOPD was understaffed and caught off guard by a larger crowd than expected. He told the Council that it “wasn’t unexpected” that 3,000-4,000 people showed up in the neighborhood and that SLOPD was “staffed accordingly to address the concerns.” That was not true. He also said there would be an after-action analysis and would have ongoing dialogue with neighbors who live in the affected neighborhood. That also did not happen. He also said there would be an after-action report brought back to the Council, and Emily Francis asked about the timeline for the after-action report, but Chief Scott was evasive and did not have a timeline. Erica also asked about the after-action report. In fact, there was never an after-action report brought back to the Council for the public to hear. It was obvious to observers of St. Fratty’s Day 2023 that SLOPD was unprepared to handle the event. Videos of the event also show dangerous, illegal behavior that morning. EMS could not navigate the crowd. Dozens of people climbed utility poles. People were openly carrying and drinking alcohol. SLOPD officers stood around the perimeter and observed. Later, DC Fred 11 Mickel admitted on a couple of occasions that SLOPD was understaffed during the St. Fratty’s Day events before 2025 because they did not anticipate the number of people who showed up in the neighborhood. The ”Background” information provided in the Agenda further states: “As the crowds in 2024 grew even larger, the City’s departmental staffing became no longer sufficient to safely address and disperse the crowds gathered in the streets and properties near campus…” This implies that the staffing was sufficient in 2022 and 2023, which it was not. The Grand Jury investigated the City’s response from 2022 to 2024 and found that it was not sufficient, and the finding was correct. When someone (or an agency) is not honest about one thing, it makes people question their honesty about other things and hurts their overall credibility. The City should accept responsibility for the mistakes and celebrate the successes and lessons learned. Failing to take responsibility and making excuses makes the city look dishonest and erodes public confidence. Code Enforcement Failed to Investigate Complaints I sent an email to the Council and Community Development citing complaints I filed before fraternity rush events that were advertised on social media with specific dates, times, and addresses of the upcoming events. The fraternities held those events at the exact date, time, and address listed in my complaint, and none of them were cited by Code Enforcement. Michelle Shoresman said in an email that "the city can’t have eyes and ears everywhere", which seemed to excuse the City’s lack of enforcement. Her response was disheartening. Code Enforcement has continued to dismiss complaints of fraternity events at illegal fraternities in our neighborhood as unfounded, even when they are posted on the fraternity’s social media pages and we observe them happening. I’ve asked SLOPD for help to document the event as a fraternity-related event, and to cite it under the applicable code of illegal land use, but SLOPD leadership said they don’t handle that type of report and referred me to Code Enforcement. It's been a circular exercise that has not brought results, and the illegal fraternities continue to operate. The Grand Jury Findings During the City Council meeting in February 2025, DC Mickel gave the presentation for the plans for St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day 2025, he said SLOPD was reactive during previous years but had learned from their mistakes. Members of the Grand Jury were in the audience. The Jurors also had links to the Police Chief’s previous statements before and after St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, 2023 and 2024; recordings of the SCLC meetings where the Chief also made conflicting statements and Mila’s and Brett’s concerns were continually ignored and even criticized by other members of SCLC; and videos of St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, 2023, and 2024. They also had information about SLOPD policies and procedures, and statements made by two officers related to their response to noisy parties, which likely would not have been known to Christine Wallace. This may be why interviews with two police officers were requested by the Grand Jury, which was blocked by SLOPD, according to the Grand Jury report. The City also claims to have provided documentation, as requested by the Jurors. The findings in the Grand Jury report were based on everything that was provided to them and their observations of the neighborhood during weekends, over at least six months. The City had an ample opportunity to give them all the relevant information throughout the investigation. The City did not “fully cooperate” with the Grand Jury. The report says that the investigation was hampered because the Grand Jury was blocked from interviewing two police officers, despite repeated requests for interviews. The Jurors wanted answers relevant to some specific issues they were investigating that may not have been clear to the City, and it was not appropriate for the City to presume the Grand Jury did not need the testimony. I included the names of two officers in my complaint, and it was related to policy decisions and operations within SLOPD that would likely not be known to Christine Wallace, so that may have been the information they were seeking. The City claimed it would have taken up valuable time from the officers’ schedules, which is ludicrous. SLOPD leadership and officers sit in the audience during Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings, in case there are questions. They certainly had an hour to sit for an interview with the Grand Jury. It is disappointing that SLOPD did not fully cooperate with the Grand Jury, and two officers were prevented from testifying. 12 Beginning on Monday, June 16, 2025, there was a huge surge in activity on my husband's website HowToRuinANeighborhood.com, as multiple people origninating from SLO City (probably staff) went onto the website to search through all the tabs for information, presumably to prepare the response to the Grand Jury by June 20, 2025. I'm not sure what they were looking for, but the website contains video and other documentation related to the issues that were investigated by the Grand Jury. I am not sure if the Grand Jury even looked at the website. Finally, it is obvious that I have been invested in solving this problem for several years and have put my heart and soul into finding solutions. The reason I have made these efforts is because I DEEPLY love my home and property, with our beautiful view of Cerro San Luis from our kitchen and back deck, gardens we’ve cultivated over many years, and an ADU that was to provide income so we could retire. We did not want to be displaced and thought my efforts would result in enforcement and allow my husband and me to stay in our home. I felt as though I was fighting for our lives. When the City did not respond to help solve the issue, I went to the news, and they covered the story. Even the Editorial Board subsequently wrote an Editorial, urging the City to take action, but it has not. The story was picked up by the Daily Mail, and many people contacted us, including legitimate production companies who wanted to film a documentary about the issue. We did not want that sort of publicity and hoped the problem would be solved by the City. We also wrote to the Grand Jury, and they investigated the matter. The Grand Jury report gave us hope, but that was lost when we read the City's 27-page response. We gave up and decided to use our entire life savings for a down payment on a house in a quiet neighborhood, and needed co-signers to qualify for the payments. We do not have any retirement and will now try to get by month-to-month, with payments that exceed 70% of our income. Meanwhile, we, and others in the affected neighborhoods, have been damaged by the inaction of the City for several years. The City should own up to that. Please appoint Jan Marx and Emily Francis (or Mike Boswell) to the Ad Hoc Committee. The public deserves to provide input on this important issue. Thank you, Kathie Walker To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 12-01-2015 Item 14 - Action for Civility Report Recommendations.pdf Call time Arrived Cleared Response time Address Type Outcome4:21 4:39 4:42 18 min 208 Hathway Loud party/Fireworks No violation4:38 4:42 4:52 4 min 260 Santa Lucia*Fireworks No report 4:51 4:57 5:15 6 min 146 Stenner*Loud yelling/music Citation 5:09 5:22 5:22 13 min 561 Luneta*Loud music Unable to Locate 5:11 5:18 5:33 7 min 322 Hathway Music & Fireworks DAC 5:50 5:54 6:03 4 min Hathway Alley Gathering per YikYak Unable to Locate 6:11 6:12 6:23 1 min 281 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 6:12 n/a 6:25 canceled 1784 McCollum*Noisy crowd in street Canceled 6:30 6:31 6:35 1 min 1218 Bond Noise/Party Citation 6:30 10:02 3 hr 32 min 451 Chorro*Noise/Party No violation 6:39 6:39 6:47 0 min**274 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 6:52 0 min**281 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 6:56 7:07 7:47 11 min 306 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 7:08 7:08 7:29 0 min**Bond & Hathway Intoxicated Person Arrest PC647(F) 7:13 7:13 7:29 0 min**1213 Bond Intoxicated Person Arrest PC647(F) 7:20 9:15 9:18 1 hr 55 min 1441 Slack*Noisy people No report 7:26 7:26 7:33 0 min**208 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 7:47 7:48 7:53 1 min 281 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 7:50 7:50 7:57 0 min**Hathway & Fredericks UIP Citation 8:00 8:00 8:16 0 min**Hathway & Carpenter Intoxicated Person Arrest PC647(F) 8:01 9:49 9:51 1 hr 48 min 175 Hathway Large Party 100+ UIP No violation 8:07 9:22 9:22 1 hr 15 min Loomis & Graves*Noisy people Unable to Locate 8:15 8:15 8:38 0 min**291 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 8:21 8:21 8:42 0 min**200 Block Hathway Assault/Oth Weapon Report to follow 8:25 8:25 8:35 0 min**291 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 8:38 10:09 10:10 1 hr 31 min 334 Foothill*Noisy people No violation 7:00 AM -Multiple police vehicles posted at intersections in neighborhood (3 hours after initial disturbances) Officers standing at Fredericks/Hathway say they've called their supervisor to respond to the scene Timeline of events on 3/12/2022 "St. Fratty's Day" College student-aged people have begun to gather in street at Hathway/Bond and loud parties are throughout neighborhood Large crowds have overtaken Hathway Ave from Carpenter to Fredericks overflowing onto Bond SLOPD POLICE LOG - 3/12/2022 5:15 AM - Police increasing presence in lower Alta Vista neighborhood (1 hour after initial disturbances) KAPPA SIGMA KAPPA SIGMA ALPHA SIGMA PHI KAPPA SIGMA KAPPA SIGMA 9:02 9:03 9:07 1 min 208 Hathway Noise/Party Citation9:03 9:07 9:17 4 min 133 Orange Noise/Party Citation9:19 9:19 9:29 0 min**191 Orange Noise/Party Citation9:26 9:28 9:41 2 min 1220 Fredericks Noise/Party-ppl on roof Citation10:02 10:13 10:26 11 min 1050 Foothill - The SLO Apts*Noise/Party Citation10:26 12:03 12:07 1 hr 36 min 200 Block Kentucky Large Party-ppl on roof Unable to Locate11:01 11:01 11:35 0 min**Longview DUI Arrest 11:11 11:42 11:43 31 min Kentucky Alley Males kicking…No report12:09 12:18 12:22 9 min 1700 Kentucky Large Party-ppl on roof No violation12:13 13:19 13:27 1 hr 6 min 1050 Foothill - The SLO Apts*Noise/Party No violation***St. Fratty's Day is meant to start at 4am and be over by mid-mornnig (i.e. 4am - 10am)By 10:00 AM - 6 hours after the initial disturbances - the lower Alta Vista neighborhood has mostly quieted down*** Police are back in their vehicles and "mopping up" after crowd dispersed*Outside of the lower-Alta Vista neighborhood which is the area targeted for St. Fratty's Day**zero (0) min response could be officer observation and not a "call" for service 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Sunday, July 13, 2025 6:49 PM To:CityClerk Subject:Please redact my email My email address was not redacted in the following email: 7/15/2025 Item 8a, Walker. Please redact those details. Also, I sent an email to Councilmembers this weekend that was forwarded to the Clerk by Michelle Shoresman. It contains my personal medical information that I did not want to be made public, and was not meant to be published on this Agenda. I sent it to my elected representatives so they would better understand the context of the City's inaction related to the illegal fraternity operations, and copied some of my neighbors who know what's gone on. It's not the end of the world if that information is made public, but it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. I'm not sure that the correspondence is specifically relevant to this particular agenda item but I trust the City Attorney would know. I did send one other email related to 8a, as a follow-up on the other "Background" in the agenda that was meant to supplement a previous email about the City's "Background" and SCLC. That one was meant for the 8a folder in Agenda Correspondence. Thank you, Kathie 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Monday, July 14, 2025 11:25 AM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Ad Hoc Committee (Item 8a.) and clarification of "Background" provided in the agenda Hi Kathie, Thank you for your additional input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the upcoming meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2025 12:58 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Ad Hoc Committee (Item 8a.) and clarification of "Background" provided in the agenda Dear City Councilmembers, I have been closely following the City Council and policy decisions in San Luis Obispo for over a decade and have a good understanding of the historical context of several issues. There is value in understanding that history. When there is turnover in City leadership and new Councilmembers are elected, or new staff leadership is hired, they usually do not fully understand the complexities of the background that led to certain policies. Jan Marx is the most knowledgeable about the subject investigated by the Grand Jury. I have watched her input be dismissed at times, despite her expertise in these issues, which is unfortunate. When it comes to noise in the Alta Vista neighborhood, Ms. Marx lived it firsthand. It got worse after she moved away, and a lot more illegal fraternities moved into the neighborhood, but she is the most experienced person on the Council and is familiar with the relevant issues. Ms. Marx should be on the Ad Hoc Committee to respond to the Grand Jury. It appears that the mayor must comment according to California Penal Code 933. It’s not clear whether that means she would also be on the Ad Hoc committee. If so, she would be an asset. 2 Otherwise, I recommend that the second member of the Ad Hoc Committee be Emily Francis or Mike Boswell. I feel that Jan’s input should be considered for who she feels would be the best fit to work together for this important role. Some of my reasons for not including Michelle Shoresman are included in the correspondence below. This is nothing personal against Michelle, and I think she is a nice person. However, she has failed to recognize the issue, has not supported Jan Marx’s attempt to have the item agendized (Erica Stewart did support the idea), has minimized the failure of the City, including Code Enforcement, to respond to complaints, among several other things that seems to indicate she is more aligned with City staff and Cal Poly than concerned about the constituents who elected her to represent them. The Council agenda for July 15, 2025, item 8a, lists the “Background” of the City’s efforts toward “neighborhood wellness”. Some of the information provided on the agenda is false. I want to provide the correct information so that the misinformation can be corrected. Also, I hope that you focus on the core issues that are relevant to the CURRENT situation by acknowledging the ext ent to which it exists. Programs and Policies The Background in the agenda says, “many of the approaches have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings,” and lists various programs and policies. We have lived in the neighborhood since the inception of these programs and policies, and can unequivocally tell you that despite each of the listed items, the noise exponentially increased in the Fall of 2021. This correlates to the significant increase i n illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood. Several fraternities moved near our home in 2021, and many were the Main Chapter houses of Cal Poly's fraternities. Even more moved in in the Fall of 2022, including one right next door and another directly across the street from our home. More were established in 2023, also near our home on Kentucky and Stafford (496 Kentucky and 1350 Stafford) and on Stafford (1271, 1273, and 1275 Stafford). And even more were added nearby in 2024, including 1276 Bond. That does not include the dozens of others, which I will not list here, but I have previously provided the addresses. Each of them held fraternity-related events throughout the year, including rush events and sorority exchanges. The increased noise level in the Fall of 2021 was documented by first-hand accounts of long-term residents in several “neighborhood group” email exchanges. That’s when I started sending videos of fraternity parties to the City because loud parties at illegal fraternities that could be heard from a block away were being cleared by SLOPD as a negative violation or unable to locate. Prior to the Fall of 2021, I had never contacted SLOPD about noisy parties because they were not such a huge issue as they were beginning in the Fall of 2021. I never had any correspondence with SLOPD Chief Cantrell or Chief Linden whatsoever, because it was not necessary. I only sent one email to Chief Gessell related to the ongoing fireworks set off on Stafford at the rugby house, next to Sid and Isabel Marques. He was responsive and respectful and went to the house with the Fire Marshall. There was never another fireworks incident from that property. But since the Fall of 2021, the noise from the illegal fraternities has gotten progressively worse each year, and most of the long- term residents on the original email chain have left the neighborhood. I have corresponded with SLOPD leadership many, many times since then without resolution. It has been enormously frustrating. The issues have also been brought up in public forums such as the City Council and the SCLC, and the pushback and dishonesty from Police Chief Scott have been especially disheartening. Civility Report The City references the “Neighborhood Wellness Community Civility Working Group,” which worked on a plan for a couple of years to promote neighborhood wellness and produced a 90-page Final Report published in Spring 2015. There were six objectives in the Final Report. I have attached a condensed version, which was attached to a City Council Agenda on 12/1/2025, when the Council recommended expanding the SCLC to include two more residents who were “most directly involved with neighborhood wellness.” The Chair of the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Karen Adler, was one of two people on the working group to address Objective One. She is still the Chair of AVNA, and her home is also now surrounded by illegal fraternities. She has expressed her extreme displeasure with the lack of enforcement by the City of illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood. It is ridiculous for the City to continue to minimize the problem and not take meaningful action to fix it. 3 Below are the six objectives from the Civility Report. None of the recommendations for Objective One, shown below, are currently implemented: I am fairly certain that none of the recommendations in Objective Two related to neighborhood wellness are currently implemented, except maybe the City sends information to college students about trash collection. 4 Of all the recommendations listed in Objective Three, the only item that I know is currently implemented is the party registr ation program. It should be noted that RQN opposed that policy when it was adopted and is still opposed to the program. When a party is registered, SLOPD does not respond, and the reporting party is told to call back in 20 minutes if the party is still going. Fraternities were registering parties with over 100 people, and the nearby neighbors were woken by the party, then had to call SLOPD, and there were no consequences. It’s essentially a ‘free pass’ to have a loud party. Also, live bands are sometimes registered, even though they are not allowed by the program, but they get a warning call, and there are no consequences. The neighborhood is still disturbed by the loud music and guests leaving after the party is broken up, which can last an hour. The SCLC is also listed as a collaborative measure; however, the MOU for SCLC was recently revised to dilute the original pur pose of addressing issues between college students and nearby neighborhoods, and the neighborhood representatives for geographical neighborhoods and member-at-large are now elected rather than appointed by the Neighborhood Associations. Last year, two SCLC members brought up the illegal fraternity issue at every single meeting, and it was never addressed within the SCLC. 5 6 Objective Four mostly relates to law enforcement between Cal Poly and the City. One item related to neighborhood wellness was assigned to SCLC to “change the student culture related to neighborhood wellness”. As discussed, the most significant issue related to noise issues in the neighborhoods near campus, spreading to other neighborhoods in northern SLO, has not been discussed at the SCLC despite being brought up during every meeting. 7 Objective Five has one item, and I am not convinced that the City has “effectively informed the community on matters of neighborhood wellness” in an annual communications plan, especially related to illegal fraternity operations, which are the largest negative impact on affected neighborhoods. Objective Six is solely about SCLC. The action item of shifting memberships “to directly involve those individuals most directly involved in neighborhood wellness” is not currently happening. Aside from one RQN representative, there are only two 'neighborhood representatives', including the neighborhood-at-large representative, Abe Lincoln. He does not live in an affected neighborhood, does not belong to any group related to neighborhood wellness, and has criticized other representatives and community members for bringing up problems with noise and the illegal fraternity operations in the neighborhoods. Abe is a nice guy, but does not meet the qualifications intended for the seat he is occupying, and the proposed representative by the 8 Neighborhood Groups was rejected, even though they did meet the qualifications of the seat, and the MOU said that the Neighborhood Groups shall appoint that member. The perspective from neighborhoods most directly involved with noise is extremely diluted by the larger membership of Cal Poly and City representatives. The other two action items of an annual report and a town hall are not currently implemented. The SCLC meetings are subject to the Brown Act, but are not recorded and archived for the public, but they should be. Cal Poly Did Not Enforce the Zoning Ordinance When It Knew of the Illegal Fraternities in 2015 The City Council, City Manager, and other leadership knew about the small number of illegal fraternities on Hathway Avenue in 2015 because after the roof collapse on St. Fratty’s Day that year, Cal Poly hired an independent agency to investigate the incident. The report cited fraternities at 348 Hathway and “others” also on Hathway. That report was presented to the City Council and is included in an Agenda in 2015. SLOPD has also been aware of the illegal fraternity houses on Hathway since that time. Christine Wallace has said that the police department was very familiar with the identified Greek houses on Hathway dating back many years. Nonetheless, the City failed to enforce the zoning regulations in 2015 and set the stage for an explosion of more illegal fra ternity houses moving into the neighborhood. The fraternity members probably thought it was legal for them to operate because the City never took any proactive measures to stop their operations. Today, there are over 40 illegal fraternities in Alta Vista, and several others in Monterey Heights. There are also some west of Santa Rosa/Hwy 1. Cal Poly and Its Fraternities are Intentionally Breaking the Law For the past two academic years, Cal Poly administration, Greek Life staff, and IFC leadership have known it is not legal for them to operate in R1/R2 neighborhoods, but they have ignored the City’s laws. They host rush events to recruit new members and regularly hold blow-out fraternity events at their illegal fraternities in residential neighborhoods. We know these events are “fraternity-related” because they follow certain protocols, as required by Cal Poly Greek Life’s Event Registration Policy. Some indicators are fraternity member 'guards' at the front door wearing construction vests or shirts that say “security”, and they check in guests with laptops. I am certain that SLOPD is also familiar with these practices. The guests that go to the parties are 90% female and often are dressed in similar colors or themes, which indicates they are "exchanges" and registered beforehand with Cal Poly. The fraternities also post photos of events on Instagram at the illegal fraternity houses, whose 9 addresses have been previously documented by the City and which have identifiable features on their homes that are seen in the photos. Most of the Main Chapter Houses for Cal Poly’s 19 fraternities are in R1/R2 neighborhoods. Decrease in Noise vs. Increase in Illegal Fraternities The Background in the agenda cites a 45% decrease in noise complaints to SLOPD since 2010. This argument is a red herring to divert attention from the current issue and attempts to distract from the fact that the problem is ongoing and unresolved in the neighborhoods in the northern part of SLO, which is the subject of the Grand Jury’s report. In 2010, there were not 50+ illegal fraternity houses, and the noise complaints to SLOPD did not regularly include parties of 100-300 people in single-family neighborhoods, as they do today! Context matters. Some weekends, nearly 50% of all noise calls citywide are from fraternities, mostly illegally operating in the single-family neighborhoods. Also, many of the long-term residents have moved from these neighborhoods because they could not tolerate the noise from these illegal fraternity operations. It is disingenuous to minimize the immense problem that the residents of these neighborhoods endure every weekend that Cal Poly is in session, which was witnessed firsthand by the members of the Grand Jury. The City should admit there’s a problem, accept the recommendations, and move forward. Let’s work to solve the issue and hold those who are responsible accountable so the people who live in the neighborhoods can have the quiet enjoyment of their homes. DACs & Citations Are Usually Not Accurate When a DAC or noise citation is issued, the number of guests at a party is self-reported to SNAP or SLOPD by the person receiving the DAC or noise citation. For example, Delta Upsilon has an illegal fraternity house at 281 Albert Drive, and they hosted a concert there in May 2025. There were HUNDREDS of people in the backyard. You can see the party in a 1-minute video on their Instagram page here: https://www.instagram.com/p/DJXia7Uh8kO/?img_index=1 or here: https://vimeo.com/1094575248?share=copy#t=0 I SLOPD issued a noise citation to a Delta Upsilon fraternity member at 281 Albert Drive, and the citation said there were 50 people at that concert/party when there were actually at least 300 people. Law enforcement does not enter yards or count people. They ask the person getting the citation how many people are at the event, so the number on the citation is often not accurate, as people will say there is a lower number than the actual number of guests. It also does not reflect the impact of the event on the neighborhood. If the City is using this “data,” just know that it is self-reported by the offender and is not necessarily accurate. One other important point is that parties like the one shown in the video are common in the neighborhood and are rarely cited as unruly gatherings. There are parties that meet the legal standard of unruly gatherings every weekend that Cal Poly is in session, but very few are cited as unruly gatherings. Sometimes, SNAP responds to documented illegal fraternity houses that received letters from Code Enforcement, so a citation can’t even be issued unless SNAP calls SLOPD, but they usually don’t. If SLOPD were to cite these parties as unruly gatherings (which they are, according to the SLOMC), it would likely make an impact to stop them from continuing. Street Closure During St. Fratty’s Day 2022 In the agenda for 7/15/2025, the City claims, “It was not until 2023 that any extended street closure occurred in response to the party…” That is false. The neighborhood streets were barricaded by SLOPD in 2022 when about 2,000 people overtook the streets near our home. On March 12, 2022, St. Fratty’s Day, we were woken by fireworks at 4 a.m. Loud music was coming from MANY houses in the neighborhood because the party was pre-planned, according to many social media posts made on Friday, March 11, 2022, that talked about the St. Fratty’s Day party on Hathway in the early morning hours the next day. By 6 a.m., the intersection at Bond and Hathway was completely overtaken by the illegal street party, and people spanned from Fredericks to Carpenter and up Bond toward Kentucky Street. It was still dark outside, and I took a video of the crowd with my phone. 10 By around 7 a.m., SLOPD officers had blocked off the neighborhood with their vehicles. SLOPD had barricaded Hathway Avenue from Fredericks Street to Carpenter, and Bond Street was barricaded from Hathway Avenue to Kentucky Street. Officers at Fredericks and Hathway told me they had called their supervisor to the scene. I sent a timeline to the City Council of the SLOPD log from that morning to show the number of calls to our neighborhood. Some calls went unanswered for hours because there were not enough officers on duty to respond. Two of the calls I made to SLOPD did not even show up on the police log, including for a party at 348 Hathway, where many people were partying on the roof. It was one of the worst offenders that morning, and there was no response from SLOPD. My neighbor on Hathway also told me he called SLOPD, and his call was not listed. The log is attached to this email. Michelle Shoresman’s response to my email seemed to indicate that my “standards” were not realistic and that SLOPD had adequately handled the matter: “Thanks for the call log. I know you are frustrated and probably don’t think it’s sufficient, but I do happen to note that there are a large number of citations that were made, and even several arrests. I would think this is likely an improvement over past years, even if not still “enough” by your standards.” The truth is that the response in 2022 was not an improvement over past years because our neighborhood was not overtaken by thousands of people for an illegal street party before or after St. Fratty’s Day 2015, when a roof collapsed and ended the party by 6:30 a.m. In any event, the neighborhood streets were barricaded by SLOPD during St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, so hopefully the record is corrected. SLOPD Chief Rick Scott’s Statements to the Council Were Not True Since 2022, the SLOPD Chief Rick Scott has often falsely claimed that this event was “historically” large, as though it had happened in previous years after the roof collapse, but that is not true. We have lived in the neighborhood since St. Fratty’s Day was “founded” in 2009 by a fraternity at 348 Hathway Ave. It was not a street party until 2015, when the roof collapsed at around 6:15 a.m. It seems the Police Chief makes blanket statements, as though there have been illegal street parties during St. Fratty’s Day all along, to deflect the responsibility that, under his leadership, the neighborhood was taken over by thousands of people in 2022, 2023, and 2024. At a Council meeting on 3/15/2022, after St. Fratty’s Day, Chief Scott debriefed the Council: “We have been planning for St. Patrick’s Day for some time now…” and he minimized the magnitude of the event. He said it took “a couple of hours to get the situation under control,” when it actually lasted almost 6 hours, beginning at 4 a.m. He claimed SLOPD was “staffed up” for the event, anticipating crowds similar to numbers before the COVID-19 shutdown. SLOPD did not have additional staff that morning, and Deputy Chief Mickel explained that they were lucky that it happened near shift change, so they could hold over the night officers as the day officers came on duty. (DC Mickel was honest and transparent about the situation, and we appreciate him very much.) St. Fratty’s Day reemerged in 2022 and progressively got worse until it was finally stopped in 2025. The Grand Jury was corre ct in its finding that the event was not handled appropriately in 2022, 2023, and 2024 because SLOPD did not have enough staff to adequately handle the event. DC Mickel admitted that SLOPD was not prepared in 2023 during an RQN meeting. He also referenced the mistakes and failure of SLOPD to fully prepare in previous years (2022-2024) during his presentation to the Council on SLOPD’s plans for 2025. Council Meeting on March 15, 2022, after St. Fratty’s Day 2022 (before St. Patrick’s Day on March 17) During the Council meeting on 3/15/2022, Jan Marx asked that the Council agendize St. Fratty’s Day for discussion. While Erica Stewart supported a future conversation on an agenda, Michelle Shoresman did not support Ms. Marx’s suggestion. Ms. Shoresman said she didn’t want to agendize discussion on the expansion of the Safety Enhancement Zone to include St. Fratty’s Day and said “putting it in the bike rack” would work best for her. 11 It was disappointing that Ms. Shoresman did not give credit to Ms. Marx’s first-hand experience with the event and did not support even a discussion of the matter on a future agenda. Carlyn Christianson was also adamant in not agendizing the item, saying the trend was downwards and was of no concern. Emily Francis and Mike Boswell were not on the City Council then. Warning Before St. Fratty’s 2023 That Was Ignored and SLOPD Was Not Prepared St. Fratty’s Day is typically held on the Saturday before winter finals, and not necessarily the Saturday before St. Patrick’s Day. The event is centered around finals because many students leave town during the week of finals, and the students want to par ty while most are still in town. This should be noted for future years, since Cal Poly is converting to a semester system. In July 2022, I warned the City and SLOPD about St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s Day occurring on Friday/Saturday on the same weekend in 2023 and sent the graphic below to show the perfect-storm scenario that would likely result in an expansion and surge of partiers for St. Fratty’s Day. I thought that the failure to have an aggressive plan would result in legitimizing the event, which would cause the event to continue to gain traction and grow. Looking back, I believe the failure of SLOPD to have an adequate plan in 2023 set in motion the exponential growth of the event the following year. At that point, in 2024, it was too late for a Safety Enhancement Zone to have any meaningful effect. St. Fratty’s Day 2023 During the morning of St. Fratty’s Day 2023, SLOPD was not prepared for the incredibly large crowd of 3,000-4,000 people that showed up. You can watch a video from the event here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYkaOsCwBbA Again, during his debrief to the City Council after the event, Chief Scott did not admit that SLOPD was understaffed and caught off guard by a larger crowd than expected. He told the Council that it “wasn’t unexpected” that 3,000-4,000 people showed up in the neighborhood and that SLOPD was “staffed accordingly to address the concerns.” That was not true. He also said there would be an after-action analysis and would have ongoing dialogue with neighbors who live in the affected neighborhood. That also did not happen. He also said there would be an after-action report brought back to the Council, and Emily Francis asked about the timeline for the after-action report, but Chief Scott was evasive and did not have a timeline. Erica also asked about the after-action report. In fact, there was never an after-action report brought back to the Council for the public to hear. It was obvious to observers of St. Fratty’s Day 2023 that SLOPD was unprepared to handle the event. Videos of the event also show dangerous, illegal behavior that morning. EMS could not navigate the crowd. Dozens of people climbed utility poles. People were openly carrying and drinking alcohol. SLOPD officers stood around the perimeter and observed. Later, DC Fred 12 Mickel admitted on a couple of occasions that SLOPD was understaffed during the St. Fratty’s Day events before 2025 because they did not anticipate the number of people who showed up in the neighborhood. The ”Background” information provided in the Agenda further states: “As the crowds in 2024 grew even larger, the City’s departmental staffing became no longer sufficient to safely address and disperse the crowds gathered in the streets and properties near campus…” This implies that the staffing was sufficient in 2022 and 2023, which it was not. The Grand Jury investigated the City’s response from 2022 to 2024 and found that it was not sufficient, and the finding was correct. When someone (or an agency) is not honest about one thing, it makes people question their honesty about other things and hurts their overall credibility. The City should accept responsibility for the mistakes and celebrate the successes and lessons learned. Failing to take responsibility and making excuses makes the city look dishonest and erodes public confidence. Code Enforcement Failed to Investigate Complaints I sent an email to the Council and Community Development citing complaints I filed before fraternity rush events that were advertised on social media with specific dates, times, and addresses of the upcoming events. The fraternities held those events at the exact date, time, and address listed in my complaint, and none of them were cited by Code Enforcement. Michelle Shoresman said in an email that "the city can’t have eyes and ears everywhere", which seemed to excuse the City’s lack of enforcement. Her response was disheartening. Code Enforcement has continued to dismiss complaints of fraternity events at illegal fraternities in our neighborhood as unfounded, even when they are posted on the fraternity’s social media pages and we observe them happening. I’ve asked SLOPD for help to document the event as a fraternity-related event, and to cite it under the applicable code of illegal land use, but SLOPD leadership said they don’t handle that type of report and referred me to Code Enforcement. It's been a circular exercise that has not brought results, and the illegal fraternities continue to operate. The Grand Jury Findings During the City Council meeting in February 2025, DC Mickel gave the presentation for the plans for St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day 2025, he said SLOPD was reactive during previous years but had learned from their mistakes. Members of the Grand Jury were in the audience. The Jurors also had links to the Police Chief’s previous statements before and after St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, 2023 and 2024; recordings of the SCLC meetings where the Chief also made conflicting statements and Mila’s and Brett’s concerns were continually ignored and even criticized by other members of SCLC; and videos of St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, 2023, and 2024. They also had information about SLOPD policies and procedures, and statements made by two officers related to their response to noisy parties, which likely would not have been known to Christine Wallace. This may be why interviews with two police officers were requested by the Grand Jury, which was blocked by SLOPD, according to the Grand Jury report. The City also claims to have provided documentation, as requested by the Jurors. The findings in the Grand Jury report were based on everything that was provided to them and their observations of the neighborhood during weekends, over at least six months. The City had an ample opportunity to give them all the relevant information throughout the investigation. The City did not “fully cooperate” with the Grand Jury. The report says that the investigation was hampered because the Grand Jury was blocked from interviewing two police officers, despite repeated requests for interviews. The Jurors wanted answers relevant to some specific issues they were investigating that may not have been clear to the City, and it was not appropriate for the City to presume the Grand Jury did not need the testimony. I included the names of two officers in my complaint, and it was related to policy decisions and operations within SLOPD that would likely not be known to Christine Wallace, so that may have been the information they were seeking. The City claimed it would have taken up valuable time from the officers’ schedules, which is ludicrous. SLOPD leadership and officers sit in the audience during Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings, in case there are questions. They certainly had an hour to sit for an interview with the Grand Jury. It is disappointing that SLOPD did not fully cooperate with the Grand Jury, and two officers were prevented from testifying. 13 Beginning on Monday, June 16, 2025, there was a huge surge in activity on my husband's website HowToRuinANeighborhood.com, as multiple people origninating from SLO City (probably staff) went onto the website to search through all the tabs for information, presumably to prepare the response to the Grand Jury by June 20, 2025. I'm not sure what they were looking for, but the website contains video and other documentation related to the issues that were investigated by the Grand Jury. I am not sure if the Grand Jury even looked at the website. Finally, it is obvious that I have been invested in solving this problem for several years and have put my heart and soul into finding solutions. The reason I have made these efforts is because I DEEPLY love my home and property, with our beautiful view of Cerro San Luis from our kitchen and back deck, gardens we’ve cultivated over many years, and an ADU that was to provide income so we could retire. We did not want to be displaced and thought my efforts would result in enforcement and allow my husband and me to stay in our home. I felt as though I was fighting for our lives. When the City did not respond to help solve the issue, I went to the news, and they covered the story. Even the Editorial Board subsequently wrote an Editorial, urging the City to take action, but it has not. The story was picked up by the Daily Mail, and many people contacted us, including legitimate production companies who wanted to film a documentary about the issue. We did not want that sort of publicity and hoped the problem would be solved by the City. We also wrote to the Grand Jury, and they investigated the matter. The Grand Jury report gave us hope, but that was lost when we read the City's 27-page response. We gave up and decided to use our entire life savings for a down payment on a house in a quiet neighborhood, and needed co-signers to qualify for the payments. We do not have any retirement and will now try to get by month-to-month, with payments that exceed 70% of our income. Meanwhile, we, and others in the affected neighborhoods, have been damaged by the inaction of the City for several years. The City should own up to that. Please appoint Jan Marx and Emily Francis (or Mike Boswell) to the Ad Hoc Committee. The public deserves to provide input on this important issue. Thank you, Kathie Walker 12-01-2015 Item 14 - Action for Civility Report Recommendations.pdf 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Thursday, August 7, 2025 3:45 PM To:Dave Congalton; McDonald, Whitney; Stewart, Erica A Subject:Illegal Fraternity Noise History - one example Attachments:348 Hathway Phi Sigma Kappa.pdf I may call into Dave's show today to talk about the illegal fraternity operations, including the many main chapter houses for Cal Poly's 19 fraternities that have and continue to operate in our neighborhoods, and the dozens of satellite houses that operate as full-fledged fraternities. I've attached the noise history of one documented illegal fraternity at 348 Hathway (Phi Sigma Kappa) that has been known to be an illegal fraternity since at least 2015, when it was cited in a report published by Cal Poly after the roof collapsed during St. Fratty's Day. It has not been shut down by the City. I wanted you to have this information beforehand. Several of the noise calls that were cleared by SLOPD as negative violations were huge, very loud parties and the videos and dates are published on HowToRuinANeighborhood.com. They were also sent to SLOPD and the City at the time that they happened. This is common in our neighborhood, and noisy parties are cleared as negative violations even when they are heard a block away. Why has the City not held this nuisance property accountable? SLOPD cleared the property's noise citation history last summer, allowing it to avoid ongoing $1000 fines to the property owner and the fraternity tenants, and starting over with $0 fine DAC warnings. SNAP was sent twice to this property after the citation history was cleared, so it was able to avoid more noise citations, and financial consequences. This fraternity continues to operate illegally and nothing has been done. This is one of many examples of illegal fraternity operations that have continued to operate, despite the City's knowledge of their location and that they are operating illegally. DAC warnings with $0 fine because SLOPD cleared citation history, thereby eliminating $1000 fine for fraternity tenants & $1000 fine for property owner. Property is only supposed to receive one DAC, then SLOPD responds. But SNAP was sent twice (9/10 & 10/12) instead of SLOPD so two DACs given to frat rather than citations. SLOPD allowed the property owner to clear citation history in summer 2024 (at red line, below) Phi Sigma Kappa posts on social media showing “Main House” at 348 Hathway Today, in 2025, it is still illegally operating as the main chapter house for Phi Sigma Kappa. Noise History for Fraternity at 348 Hathway illegally located in R2 zone RF=Report Filed, probably unruly gathering or refusal to open the door 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Thursday, August 7, 2025 6:46 PM To:Stewart, Erica A Subject:Living on Cerro Romauldo vs. the situation in Alta Vista/Monterey Hts Hi Erica, Today, on Dave Congalton’s show, you mentioned having lived on Cerro Romauldo Avenue several years ago with your young children. I lived nearby on Santa Lucia Drive about 30 years ago, when my own children were 3, 5, and 7. My parents also lived on McCollum in Monterey Heights until 2010. At that time, and still today, there were no fraternity operations in the Cerro Romauldo neighborhood. There were also none in Monterey Heights in 2010. The spread of illegal fraternity operations into residential neighborhoods is a relatively recent, and deeply troubling, development. Our family has seen it escalate firsthand. What began with a few fraternity houses on Hathway has grown into more than 40 operating in the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods, and a few spreading to the Tassajara/Ramona area. By the City’s own definition, these are fraternity houses which are not legally allowed to operate without a permit, and are prohibited in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. They are operating illegally and knowingly violating City law. The difference between living near college students and living near fraternity houses is night and day. Comparing those experiences feels dismissive of the extremely serious and escalating problem we have faced. Please believe The Tribune article and the reporter's two- to three-month investigation — she witnessed the chaos in our neighborhood firsthand. Please believe the Grand Jury report, based on months of investigation and direct observation of these same conditions. A fraternity house in a residential area is the equivalent of a nightclub moving onto your block — booming music, hundreds of people drinking and yelling, traffic coming and going all night long, and a constant churn of rideshare vehicles. Our home is now surrounded by multiple fraternity houses — many of them official chapter houses — that routinely host rush events, sorority exchanges, and other large gatherings. These are documented both in Cal Poly’s AB 524 report and more recently on the fraternity's public social media pages. This isn’t occasional noise. It’s every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. And it’s not going away until the City steps up. The City must compel Cal Poly to disclose the addresses of these houses and begin citing the property owners until the illegal operations cease. The conditions the neighbors in these neighborhoods are living under are untenable. This is not normal. This is not acceptable. This is not legal. It is absolute hell for those of us who are forced to live among illegal fraternity operations, and we need the City to act now because this is happening within the city limits and under its jurisdiction. It doesn't feel good to have the problem minimized and I hope there is more sensitivity for the issue moving forward. Thank you, Kathie 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Thursday, August 7, 2025 3:57 PM To:Dave Congalton; McDonald, Whitney; Stewart, Erica A Subject:Re: Illegal Fraternity Noise History - one example P.S. I believe there are more recent noise citations for this property but have not requested an updated history for 2025. On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 3:45 PM kathie walker < wrote: I may call into Dave's show today to talk about the illegal fraternity operations, including the many main chapter houses for Cal Poly's 19 fraternities that have and continue to operate in our neighborhoods, and the dozens of satellite houses that operate as full-fledged fraternities. I've attached the noise history of one documented illegal fraternity at 348 Hathway (Phi Sigma Kappa) that has been known to be an illegal fraternity since at least 2015, when it was cited in a report published by Cal Poly after the roof collapsed during St. Fratty's Day. It has not been shut down by the City. I wanted you to have this information beforehand. Several of the noise calls that were cleared by SLOPD as negative violations were huge, very loud parties and the videos and dates are published on HowToRuinANeighborhood.com. They were also sent to SLOPD and the City at the time that they happened. This is common in our neighborhood, and noisy parties are cleared as negative violations even when they are heard a block away. Why has the City not held this nuisance property accountable? SLOPD cleared the property's noise citation history last summer, allowing it to avoid ongoing $1000 fines to the property owner and the fraternity tenants, and starting over with $0 fine DAC warnings. SNAP was sent twice to this property after the citation history was cleared, so it was able to avoid more noise citations, and financial consequences. This fraternity continues to operate illegally and nothing has been done. This is one of many examples of illegal fraternity operations that have continued to operate, despite the City's knowledge of their location and that they are operating illegally. 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Monday, August 11, 2025 1:18 PM To:Stewart, Erica A Subject:Re: Living on Cerro Romauldo vs. the situation in Alta Vista/Monterey Hts Flag Status:Flagged Hi Erica, Thank you for your reply. I appreciate knowing that the City is taking these issues seriously and working toward meaningful solutions. I would welcome the opportunity to be included in future conversations on this matter. Steve and I have recently leased our home to three Cal Poly engineering students, each of whom is the first in their family to attend college. During our initial meeting, they expressed some concern about potential noise, as they have early mornings and significant responsibilities. I will continue to stay engaged and keep an eye on the situation. Everyone deserves the ability to rest and enjoy their home in peace. I know how much you juggle in your role, and I’m grateful for your leadership and dedication to our community. Thank you again for your time and response. -Kathie On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 8:49 AM Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, Thank you for your email. I’m sorry that you feel I was minimizing the fraternity and noise issues. I assure you myself and the city are taking this seriously. We are looking into many options that other towns with universities are trying to use and meeting with Cal Poly to make intentional change and better communication. Sincerely, 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 C 805.540.1154 slocity.org 2 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Instagram To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2025 6:45 PM To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Living on Cerro Romauldo vs. the situation in Alta Vista/Monterey Hts Hi Erica, Today, on Dave Congalton’s show, you mentioned having lived on Cerro Romauldo Avenue several years ago with your young children. I lived nearby on Santa Lucia Drive about 30 years ago, when my own children were 3, 5, and 7. My parents also lived on McCollum in Monterey Heights until 2010. At that time, and still today, there were no fraternity operations in the Cerro Romauldo neighborhood. There were also none in Monterey Heights in 2010. The spread of illegal fraternity operations into residential neighborhoods is a relatively recent, and deeply troubling, development. Our family has seen it escalate firsthand. What began with a few fraternity houses on Hathway has grown into more than 40 operating in the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods, and a few spreading to the Tassajara/Ramona area. By the City’s own definition, these are fraternity houses which are not legally allowed to operate without a permit, and are prohibited in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. They are operating illegally and knowingly violating City law. The difference between living near college students and living near fraternity houses is night and day. Comparing those experiences feels dismissive of the extremely serious and escalating problem we have faced. Please believe The Tribune article and the reporter's two- to three-month investigation — she witnessed the chaos in our neighborhood firsthand. Please believe the Grand Jury report, based on months of investigation and direct observation of these same conditions. A fraternity house in a residential area is the equivalent of a nightclub moving onto your block — booming music, hundreds of people drinking and yelling, traffic coming and going all night long, and a constant churn of rideshare vehicles. Our home is now surrounded by multiple fraternity houses — many of them official chapter houses — that routinely host rush events, sorority exchanges, and other large gatherings. These are documented both in Cal Poly’s AB 524 report and more recently on the fraternity's public social media pages. This isn’t occasional noise. It’s every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. And it’s not going away until the City steps up. The City must compel Cal Poly to disclose the addresses of these houses and begin citing the property owners until the illegal operations cease. The conditions the neighbors in these neighborhoods are living under are untenable. This is not normal. This is not acceptable. This is not legal. It is absolute hell for those of us who are forced to live among illegal fraternity operations, and we need the City to act now because this is happening within the city limits and under its jurisdiction. It doesn't feel good to have the problem minimized and I hope there is more sensitivity for the issue moving forward. Thank you, Kathie 1 From:Stewart, Erica A Sent:Monday, August 11, 2025 8:49 AM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: Living on Cerro Romauldo vs. the situation in Alta Vista/Monterey Hts Hi Kathie, Thank you for your email. I’m sorry that you feel I was minimizing the fraternity and noise issues. I assure you myself and the city are taking this seriously. We are looking into many options that other towns with universities are trying to use and meeting with Cal Poly to make intentional change and better communication. Sincerely, 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 C 805.540.1154 slocity.org To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Instagram To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2025 6:45 PM To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Living on Cerro Romauldo vs. the situation in Alta Vista/Monterey Hts Hi Erica, Today, on Dave Congalton’s show, you mentioned having lived on Cerro Romauldo Avenue several years ago with your young children. I lived nearby on Santa Lucia Drive about 30 years ago, when my own children were 3, 5, and 7. My parents also lived on McCollum in Monterey Heights until 2010. At that time, and still today, there were no fraternity operations in the Cerro Romauldo neighborhood. There were also none in Monterey Heights in 2010. The spread of illegal fraternity operations into residential neighborhoods is a relatively recent, and deeply troubling, development. Our family has seen it escalate 2 firsthand. What began with a few fraternity houses on Hathway has grown into more than 40 operating in the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods, and a few spreading to the Tassajara/Ramona area. By the City’s own definition, these are fraternity houses which are not legally allowed to operate without a permit, and are prohibited in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. They are operating illegally and knowingly violating City law. The difference between living near college students and living near fraternity houses is night and day. Comparing those experiences feels dismissive of the extremely serious and escalating problem we have faced. Please believe The Tribune article and the reporter's two- to three-month investigation — she witnessed the chaos in our neighborhood firsthand. Please believe the Grand Jury report, based on months of investigation and direct observation of these same conditions. A fraternity house in a residential area is the equivalent of a nightclub moving onto your block — booming music, hundreds of people drinking and yelling, traffic coming and going all night long, and a constant churn of rideshare vehicles. Our home is now surrounded by multiple fraternity houses — many of them official chapter houses — that routinely host rush events, sorority exchanges, and other large gatherings. These are documented both in Cal Poly’s AB 524 report and more recently on the fraternity's public social media pages. This isn’t occasional noise. It’s every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. And it’s not going away until the City steps up. The City must compel Cal Poly to disclose the addresses of these houses and begin citing the property owners until the illegal operations cease. The conditions the neighbors in these neighborhoods are living under are untenable. This is not normal. This is not acceptable. This is not legal. It is absolute hell for those of us who are forced to live among illegal fraternity operations, and we need the City to act now because this is happening within the city limits and under its jurisdiction. It doesn't feel good to have the problem minimized and I hope there is more sensitivity for the issue moving forward. Thank you, Kathie 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Friday, August 22, 2025 9:52 AM To:Advisory Bodies Cc:E-mail Council Website Subject:Planning Commission Hearing re: Grand Jury Report Attachments:planning commission (1).pdf; Phi Kappa Psi Use Permit.pdf Dear Planning Commissioners, After my husband and I read the City's response to the grand jury report, we lost hope and decided to move out of the neighborhood. The fraternities have made it impossible for my husband to get rest for work or for us to have peace in our lives from Thursday to Sunday. This has been an extremely painful decision and we are still struggling, as we move from our longtime home where we raised our sons. I put together a lot of background information that is relevant to the situation and have attached it to this email. I hope you will read it because it is all important. You, as planning commissioners, have been instrumental in making change and I am extremely thankful for that. Please take some time this weekend to read through the information provided. My husband and I are very busy moving and will likely not be at the meeting but hope you will read the information and consider everything as you make your recommendation. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 Dear Planning Commissioners, In consideration of the grand jury’s recommendation to the Planning Commission, I am providing documentation with pertinent information about the grand jury and some history that led to the investigation. I wanted you to have enough time to go through the information before your meeting later this month. Thank you for your time and dedication toward solving this issue. What is the SLO County Civil Grand Jury? The primary function of the San Luis Obispo County Civil Grand Jury is to “examine all aspects of local government, ensuring that the county is being governed honestly and efficiently and that county monies are being handled judiciously,” according to the County’s website. Members of the grand jury begin their one-year service on July 1st. Some jurors may decide to hold over and serve another term. Every year, the grand jury publishes an annual report about San Luis Obispo County law enforcement and the detention centers. The grand jury members determine what other matters of concern they will investigate based on issues in the news, complaints submitted, et cetera. For example, in 2022-2023, the grand jury investigated the mental health in high schools within SLO County following the COVID-19 pandemic, the sufficiency of the Paso Robles water basin, investment in election accuracy, and the safety of the homeless safe parking site on Oklahoma Drive near the County jail. Reports are here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17tMD- cucoU6ohpMZD7fQK7mX8hgHOkNj There were four new matters investigated in 2022-2023, and three new matters investigated in 2023- 2024. However, this year (2024-2025) the grand jury only investigated one new matter. This was presumably because it is a multi-layered and complex issue that took a great deal of time and coordination: The city of San Luis Obispo’s failure to adequately respond to St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, 2023 and 2024; the growth of “Halloweekend”, the 3-night neighborhood takeover by thousands of college-aged people primarily at fraternity houses throughout the neighborhoods; the related “fraternity problem” including the City’s failure to enforce existing fraternity CUPs; failure to adequately address the illegal fraternity houses within the city of SLO; the lack of consequences for extreme nuisance properties with a significant history of many ongoing noise citations at some fraternity operations; SLOPD’s potential lack of understanding of the noise ordinance and failing to enforce the noise ordinance for obviously loud parties; SLOPD dispatching SNAP students to known fraternities instead of sworn officers (the City requires SLOPD officers to respond to fraternities); SLOPD’s ‘policy’ as stated by two police officers to not shut down noisy parties after citing them and requiring the reporting party to make additional calls to dispatch for repeated responses by SLOPD; noise complaints made by the public repeatedly not appearing 2 on SLOPD’s dispatch logs; SLOPD police chief targeting certain members of the public who highlighted SLOPD’s lack of enforcement during a meeting, etc. There were multiple complaints filed, including one by my husband and me. I was the only person from my family interviewed by the grand jury and am aware of one other person who was interviewed for a separate complaint. That person and I have not discussed our interviews with one another. The grand jury asked me questions related to matters outside the scope of my complaint, so I presume those issues were raised in other complaints. During the investigation, the grand jury invited witnesses to voluntarily testify, and each witness was sworn to confidentiality until the report was released in June. Because of the confidential nature, the City could not have known the scope of the grand jury’s investigation, which included a multitude of issues aside from illegal street parties during St. Fratty’s Day and Halloweekend. Although the City was not aware of the full extent of the grand jury’s investigation, in the City’s response memo to the grand jury report titled “Factual Problems with Grand Jury Report,” the City essentially claims it knew better than the grand jury about what information was pertinent to the grand jury’s investigation, and says the grand jury had “no need for additional City staff to divert scarce operational resources toward likely incomplete and/or duplicative appearances that would have been inefficient and operationally unsupportable based on the City’s understanding of the scope of inquiry…” The City also implies that the grand jury should have issued subpoenas for the testimony of the police officers whose testimony was requested by the grand jury but was blocked. An interview with the grand jury is typically less than one hour. The City’s implication that two officers did not have one hour available over the course of a multi-month investigation because of the City’s “scarce operational resources” is not credible. It’s also presumptuous for the City to claim that information sought by the officers’ testimony would have been “incomplete and/or duplicative” that would have been “inefficient and operationally unsupportable”. The City did not know the full scope of the grand jury’s investigation. The problems outlined in the grand jury report were not a surprise to the City. I have been emailing the City and SLOPD about these issues since the fall of 2021. I discussed them with the former City 3 Manager and Code Enforcement in 2022 when several fraternities began illegally operating near our home, including next door, directly across the street, and many others within a block from our home. I filed a police report in early 2023, when I was continuously cyberstalked and harassed by a fraternity member living next door, beginning within hours of the fraternity receiving a noise citation. (SLOPD did not investigate the case, falsely claimed in the news that I requested it not be investigated, then when my emails proved otherwise, SLOPD added a supplemental report to my report two years later that said they were not able to get a warrant for the suspect’s computer.) In fall 2023, I met with the Community Development Director and Code Enforcement Supervisor and provided a large report with documentation of every fraternity location. For your reference, the Planning Commission was sent a copy of that report on 6/10/2024 as an attachment to an email with the subject line “Planning Commission, 6/12/2024, 1264 Foothill Fraternity Use Permit”. Therefore, you have a copy of the report. The “Factual Problems” in the City’s response to the grand jury report illustrates the City’s desire to control the narrative, convolute the issues, and focus on things that are not material to the core findings of the investigation. The City nitpicks the grand jury’s wording, such as objecting to the reference of San Luis Obispo as “a quaint town with a rich history”. It is disrespectful to the 19 impartial jurors who volunteered a year of their time to serve on the grand jury and were tasked with a complex investigation related to operations within the City of San Luis Obispo, knowing nothing more than the information provided to them, mostly by the City itself, and the jurors’ firsthand experiences visiting the neighborhood and researching the issue. The Grand Jury Investigation of the City of San Luis Obispo Although the grand jury could not complete its investigation into some of the actions by the San Luis Obispo Police Department because SLOPD leadership blocked the testimony of two officers (Finding 6), the Grand Jury was able to complete its investigation of the other matters by, among other things: • Interviewing 15 people, primarily City staff members. • Reviewing documentation including videos and statements made by City staff and SLOPD leadership during City Council meetings, Planning Commission hearings, and Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) meetings. • Attending some of those meetings in person (I recognized some jurors at meetings I attended after I was interviewed). • Visiting the neighborhoods near Cal Poly’s campus during weekends. • Reviewing a large quantity of documentation, including “thousands of documents” provided by the City, according to the City Manager. Using the information provided to them, the grand jurors did their best to make sense of these complex issues and condense the information into a relatively short report with 6 findings and 7 recommendations. The Planning Commission is responsible for matters relating to CUPs for Cal Poly’s fraternities located in the city. Finding 4 of the grand jury report states: 4 “The city has failed to consistently enforce CUPs such as the requirements for an annual list of parties and events, notification to neighbors, and parking plans. Strict enforcement of these conditions would contribute to a reduction of the disturbances in the neighborhoods.” Therefore, the grand jury made Recommendation 6, below, and requested the Planning Commission to respond in coordination with the City Manager: “The SLO City Manager and the Planning Commission should move toward adopting more uniform conditions for CUPs and enforcement of existing requirements. Due to the time span (1971-2024) in which these CUPs were approved, the requirements are inconsistent. The City should consider using future CUP violations to determine if it is appropriate to revise the conditions to make them more relevant for today’s environment. This may require consideration of additional code enforcement staff or alternative work schedules.” Planning Commission’s Role So Far Recommendation to the City to coordinate with San Luis Obispo Police Department The Planning Commission first became aware of the “fraternity problem” in June 2024 when correspondence was sent prior to a hearing for approval of a CUP for Lambda Chi Alpha. During the hearing on 6/12/2024, Commissioners recommended to City Community Development staff that the City ensure that Code Enforcement and SLOPD communicate information with one another about matters related to fraternities. Unfortunately, that has not happened. SLOPD leadership has said it does not enforce the conditions of CUPs but defers to Code Enforcement. But Code Enforcement does not work weekends or evenings and therefore does not respond to reported fraternity-related events, which are primarily during those time periods. SLOPD officers and Dispatch do not have a database with addresses that have been identified as illegal fraternity operations by Code Enforcement to inform the responses to those addresses when noisy party complaints are called in. SLOPD is required to respond to documented fraternity houses, not SNAP. Unfortunately, SLOPD dispatch continues to send SNAP students to documented illegal fraternity houses with large events, including the main chapter houses of multiple fraternities. SNAP cannot issue noise citations so if there is a loud party, they sometimes issue a $0 fine warning called a disturbance advisement card or DAC but often dismiss loud parties as negative violations. It is intimidating for these SNAP students to confront a large group of fraternity members who are not happy to have their party disturbed. On several occasions, I have witnessed SNAP students respond to a loud fraternity party near our home and walk away without citing it. SNAP students have told me directly that they don’t want to respond to fraternities. This information has repeatedly been relayed to SLOPD leadership, but nothing has changed. SLOPD is not dispatched to a noisy party complaint until after the property receives a DAC, and even then, sometimes SLOPD dispatch sends SNAP for a second complaint at a later date, which means there are no consequences because SNAP cannot issue a noise citation with a fine. 5 There are many illegal fraternity properties with multiple addresses on a single parcel. In those cases, only one address gets a DAC warning. When the fraternity has another noisy party, they receive another DAC warning at the different address on the same property/parcel, and so on, until they finally move up to getting a noise citation. This is a common practice for illegal fraternity houses with multiple addresses on one property/parcel, to avoid getting citations. A DAC warning is given to each individual address before it escalates to a citation, even though the same fraternity occupies the entire property. Some examples are Phi Kappa Psi at 1271 A & B, 1273, 1275 Stafford; Theta Chi at 496 Kentucky & 1350 Stafford; Alpha Epsilon Pi at 331 Hathway A, B, C, D; Kappa Sigma at 281 & 281 ½ Hathway, Phi Sigma Kappa at 348 & 350 Hathway; Alpha Sigma Phi at 1218 & 1220 Bond; Theta Chi at 248 & 250 Grand. This problem was pointed out to the City, with documentation of SLOPD’s noise calls illustrating the trend, but nothing has changed. This should be rectified so that documented fraternities with multiple addresses on a single parcel are not eligible for separate DAC warnings and then separate noise citations at various addresses on the same parcel. The noise citations should be cumulative, against the entire property, when it is known to be occupied by a fraternity. Finally, some of the addresses of documented illegal fraternity operations have been allowed to clear their citation history through SLOPD’s “Early Removal Program” even though recognized fraternities are not allowed to clear their citation history through that program. One example is 348/350 Hathway, below. This allows a fraternity with multiple citations that potentially cost $1000 to the fraternity members and $1000 to the property owner for each violation, to erase the citation history and start over with a response from SNAP and a $0 fine warning or DAC, then progressively increasing citation fines for subsequent violations. Multiple illegal fraternity properties have cleared their citation history through SLOPD using this program even though they continue to be the exact same fraternity year after year. “Early Removal” is not a deterrent and enables fraternities that receive ongoing noise citations, and property owners who knowingly lease their properties to fraternities in R1 and R2 neighborhoods, to escape consequential fines for their continual disturbances to the neighborhood. 6 The City Cites Planning Commission’s Revocation of CUPs as Evidence of Enforcement In the City’s 27-page response to the grand jury report, the City says it has enforced its zoning laws by citing the Planning Commission’s revocation of some fraternity CUPs. For clarification: 7 1. The CUP revocations are very recent and initially, on May 28,2025, the City recommended approval the CUP for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu. The City did not even have Draft Resolutions prepared for the revocations of both CUPs which caused a delay for revocation until the Resolutions could be prepared and approved at the following Planning Commission meeting on June 11 , 2025. 2. The City never re-reviewed any fraternity CUP until residents filed multiple complaints with Community Development regarding a fraternity’s CUP. In February 2024, a complaint was filed about Alpha Epsilon Pi, citing six noise citations including two unruly gatherings in the previous 10 months. The City did not act and AEPi continued to host loud parties and rack up another four noise citations before the end of the school year. In June 2024, another complaint was filed with Community Development citing an additional four noise citations since the previous complaint was filed in February. Most of these parties listed 100 people, which far exceeded the maximum occupancy of 25 people allowed by the CUP. The residents continued to contact the City to ask what was being done and ask when the fraternity’s CUP would be reviewed, pointing out that there seemed to be space on the Planning Commission’s agenda because multiple meetings had been cancelled. The City finally scheduled a hearing for re-review on 11/13/2024. Before last year, the City’s fraternity CUPs included a condition that allowed City staff or a resident to file a written complaint to have the CUPs re-reviewed or revoked based on a noise citation or other violation. The City never requested review of a CUP even though every fraternity with a CUP had a history of multiple ongoing noise citations. Repeated noise citations also showed large parties that violated the maximum occupancy listed in the CUPs. The City did not monitor the situation and there was no coordination between Community Development and SLOPD. SLOPD knew where the fraternity houses were, including permitted houses and many operating illegally within the neighborhoods. SLOPD did not communicate that information to Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement never reached out to SLOPD for the noise history, citations, or notation of the number of attendees on noise citations at the permitted fraternity properties for comparison and compliance with their CUPs. Even after documentation was given to the City that showed multiple violations of the CUPs conditions for all fraternities with CUPs, no action was taken by the City. The City never brought any CUPs to the Planning Commission for re-review or revocation until residents filed a complaint in February 2024, then another complaint in June 2024, and emailed and pestered the City until the matter was finally addressed nine months after the initial complaint was made. The City claims it has made efforts to solve the problem when it was the residents and their non- stop persistence that actually compelled the CUPs to be re-reviewed. Once the Planning Commission was aware of the issue, it recognized the problems and attempted to solve them by implementing consequences, such as revocation of CUPs, and requesting the City convene a forum with Cal Poly, Greek Life, the neighborhood residents and the City. Aside from the 8 recognition by the Planning Commissioners, the overall problem with fraternities has not been adequately addressed by the City and the problem has been allowed to continue to grow. More residents have been forced to leave the neighborhood because the conditions do not allow people to rest, sleep, or have the quiet enjoyment of their property. Some college students won’t live in the neighborhood because the nature of the non-stop fraternity parties makes it impossible to study, sleep, and live peacefully. The City Has Not Followed Planning Commission’s Directive Regarding CUP On 11/13/2024, the Planning Commission held a hearing for a re-review of Alpha Epsilon Pi’s CUP, according to complaints filed by residents in February and June 2024. During the hearing, the Commissioners spent a long time going over the revised CUP conditions with City staff and asked for clarification about whether a noise violation is a “public nuisance” according to one of the conditions. The Commissioners were concerned about one of the conditions that allowed three violations within a year, which they said seemed too excessive before a fraternity was brought back for re-review. The Commissioners asked for clarification about a condition that was included in the CUP which would bring about a review for a single noise citation if it was considered a public nuisance. The City staff said that a noise violation is considered a public nuisance (it is defined as such in the Municipal Code) and therefore, the fraternity would be brought back to the Planning Commission if it received another noise citation. At the end of the hearing, a Commissioner issued a stern warning to the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity members about the consequences of a single noise citation, and that they would be back before the Planning Commission should that occur. On Wednesday, 4/16/2025, Alpha Epsilon Pi received a noise citation with 150 people listed at the party, cleared by SLOPD at 10:55 P.M. The CUP limits max occupancy to 25 for any event so that party had six times the maximum number of people allowed. Two days later, on Friday 4/18/2025, the fraternity received a second noise citation with 100 people listed at the party. 9 The City, including Community Development, was made aware of the violations of the conditions of the CUP and reminded of the directive from the Planning Commission at the hearing on 11/13/2024, regarding the public nuisance condition that would bring the fraternity back to the Planning Commission after one noise citation. However, Community Development did not and has not taken any action to have Alpha Epsilon Pi’s CUP re-reviewed. After Alpha Epsilon Pi received its second noise citation, it began hosting fraternity events at its illegal fraternity location at 331 Hathway Ave, directly next door to its main chapter house at 280 California Blvd. This was likely done to avoid getting a third noise citation at their permitted house and bears out the Planning Commissioners’ statements and concerns that it is problematic to allow three citations before the CUP is re-reviewed. The City has identified 331 Hathway Ave as an illegal fraternity house and issued a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operation at the property. Still, AEPi fraternity events are advertised and continue to be held at 331 Hathway Ave. 10 On May 25, 2025, AEPi hosted a large daytime raging party also known as a “dayge” at 331 Hathway and received a noise citation for a party of 100+ people. Many college-aged females were recorded on our home video surveillance walking down Fredericks Street toward the fraternity and some said they were going to AEPi’s dayge, therefore it was apparent that it was a fraternity-related event. The person who received the citation is a member of AEPi. As mentioned, Code Enforcement has already documented that 331 Hathway Ave is an illegal location for the fraternity for AEPi. Nothing has happened to hold Alpha Epsilon Pi accountable for violating the conditions of its CUP with extremely large, loud parties that received noise citations, or continuing to operate illegally at 331 Hathway Ave. A complaint was filed for the illegal fraternity event at 331 Hathway on 5/25/2025 and it was dismissed by Code Enforcement staff as “unable to verify”. The City’s Response to Illegal Fraternity Operations The same illegal fraternities continue to operate as they have for several years, and more were added to the R1 and R2 neighborhoods each year for the past several years. Code Enforcement does not go to verify the fraternity events reported at illegal fraternity houses because the events are usually on weekends and Code Enforcement officers don’t work weekends. There was one occasion in January 2025, after the City became aware of the Grand Jury’s investigation, that Code Enforcement staff worked after-hours to respond to reported illegal fraternity events. According to the grand jury report, Code Enforcement cited 12 illegal fraternity houses on that occasion. Despite these citations, the illegal fraternities have continued to operate at those addresses. Still, the effort proves that proactive enforcement on weekends does work to identify and cite illegal fraternity operations. The City claims they are enforcing the Municipal Code because Community Development has issued multiple Notices of Violation and Advisory Letters to property owners where illegal fraternity operations are happening. However, those notifications have not compelled the property owners or fraternity members to cease fraternity operations at those locations. Nothing has changed since this problem was first brought to the City’s attention four years ago except more illegal fraternities have been established in the R1 and R2 neighborhoods that continually hold illegal fraternity-related events. Fraternity events are distinctly identifiable because they follow Cal Poly’s Event Registration Policy, with guards wearing ‘security’ or construction vests at the front doors, checking in guests on laptops. There 11 are usually a large number of female guests often dressed similarly in themed costumes or the same color, etc. for sorority exchanges/parties at the fraternity houses. Sometimes there are banners. Complaints about illegal fraternity operations are routinely dismissed by Code Enforcement as ‘unable to verify’ or ‘unfounded’, even though the fraternity events took place at the reported fraternity addresses on the date and time reported. This is because Code Enforcement officers don’t work on evenings or weekends, when fraternity events happen, so those that are reported are not cited. Also, the City employee who is primarily responsible for handling the fraternity was using an incorrect and standard of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, therefore was dismissing complaints unless the fraternity admitted to holding the event. The actual standard of proof required is the much lower standard of a “preponderance of the evidence”, which means it is more likely than not. Most complaints met this standard, with photographic evidence and social media posts by the fraternities showing illegal events at the fraternity houses, but were dismissed by the City. This staff member was hired about 1 ½ years ago and has handled the fraternity problem throughout that time. The Community Development Director acknowledged that the code enforcement officer should be using the lowest standard of proof necessary, which merely needs to tip the scale to show that it is more likely than not that the event held was a fraternity-related event. The Community Development Director indicated that training would be provided to the code enforcement officer so that he understood the actual proof required. However, he has continued to dismiss fraternity-related events as ‘unable to verify’ or ‘unfounded’ despite the evidence provided. Unless code enforcement officers are working weekends and evenings to confirm fraternity events within the residential neighborhoods, the problem will not be solved. Therefore, in accordance with the grand jury’s recommendation, the City should have code enforcement staff work evenings and weekends to confirm fraternity events at known and/or reported fraternity houses Additionally, the most feasible way to verify the addresses of the illegal fraternity operations is to compel Cal Poly to disclose the addresses. Fraternities are required to register each of their events 5- 10 days beforehand with Cal Poly’s Greek Life staff, and those events are “sanctioned” by Cal Poly beforehand. The events are listed in Cal Poly’s annual AB 524 report as “sanctioned events”. A screenshot from a portion of Cal Poly’s most recent AB 524 report is below: 12 The City claims it submitted a public records request to Cal Poly for the addresses where fraternity- related events are held, and Cal Poly refused to release the addresses. However, those addresses are not protected by any exemption under the California Public Records Act. Therefore, the City can ask for a judge to compel Cal Poly to release the publicly disclosable information to the City and the public. So far, the City has not been willing to hold Cal Poly accountable for the illegal fraternity operations and the damage they have caused to the neighborhood. Cal Poly claims it is not responsible because the university does not have jurisdiction over the city, and it is up to the City to enforce its laws. Meanwhile, the problem remains unsolved. Existing Fraternity Conditional Use Permits Community Development recently realized that the CUP for 1292 Foothill Blvd and 123, 135, 137 & 175 Crandall Way is not valid because it was based on an older proposed project that was never completed. Therefore, there are currently only three CUPs for fraternities within the city of San Luis Obispo and two of them are tenuous because they have had multiple violations of their CUPs. 1. Alpha Epsilon Pi at 280 California Blvd 2. Lambda Chi Alpha at 1264 Foothill Blvd & 1241, 1243, 1249 & 1251 Monte Vista Place 13 3. Phi Kappa Psi at 1335 Foothill Blvd Alpha Epsilon Pi Alpha Epsilon Pi was covered already, above, and has violated the conditions of its CUP without consequences, while also holding events at its illegal fraternity location at 331 Hathway Ave. The fraternity has 133 members according to Cal Poly’s last AB 524 report. Lambda Chi Alpha Lambda Chi Alpha’s CUP was approved by the City Council on 10/15/2024. By 5/31/2025, the fraternity had received five noise citations during the 2024-2025 academic year including three noise citations since its CUP was approved on 10/15/2025, which automatically triggers a re-review. The fraternity has about 137 members according to Cal Poly’s last AB 524 report. i The noise citation on 5/31/2025 was for a dayge with 200 people listed. This is over four times the maximum occupancy allowed of 48 people for any event at the property. According to the Code Enforcement Supervisor, John Mezzapesa, Lambda Chi Alpha’s CUP will be brought back to the Planning Commission for re-review or revocation in the fall. The fraternity also has documented illegal fraternity houses that hold fraternity-related events at 171 Orange, 12 Hathway, 253 Albert, 278 Albert, 285 Chaplin, and 178 Chaplin. Some have a significant history of noise complaints to SLOPD and noise citations, with documentation of ongoing fraternity events advertised on the fraternity’s social media, but the City has not acted to shut them down. Therefore, they continue to hold fraternity-related events. Phi Kappa Psi The fraternity CUP is outdated and should be updated to remove unnecessary information, bring the conditions in line with current laws, and ensure the conditions cover the problems that have been brought to light over the past few years. I have attached the original CUP to this email. 14 Conditions of the CUP limit occupancy to 8 people. Meetings or gatherings are limited to a maximum of 11 people from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and 17 people from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. It also requires a minimum of 6 parking spaces on site “maintained at all times”. A condition allows the CUP to be referred to the Planning Commission with receipt of a substantiated written complaint from any resident, Code Enforcement Officer, Police Department employee, or Cal Poly employee, when there is a verifiable violation of the CUP or City regulations. This condition should be included in every CUP. The fraternity has 82 members according to Cal Poly’s last AB 524 report. In 2023, I provided a report to Community Development and Code Enforcement with a list of the noise complaints for every fraternity. During nine months (June 2022 to March 2023) Phi Kappa Psi had six noise complaints, between 10:25 pm to 1:05 a.m., and four resulted in citations at 1335 Foothill, as noted in my 2023 report, below. No action was taken by the City to re-review Phi Kappa Psi’s CUP. During the last academic year (2024-2025), there were two noise citations at 1335 Foothill. Most of Phi Kappa Psi’s events are held at its illegal fraternity locations at 237 Albert, 346 Grand, 1740 Fredericks, 1271, 1273 and 1275 Stafford, which have a significant number of noise complaints, and 1276 Bond, which was observed by Code Enforcement as holding a rush event in January 2025 and has multiple noise complaints. Fraternity events, including rush recruitment, have been advertised at these addresses. Current Fraternities at Cal Poly Despite only three fraternity CUPs in the City, there are currently 19 fraternities at Cal Poly, and a 20th was approved to join Cal Poly Greek Life in Fall 2026. These 19 fraternities have active memberships and routinely host events at their main chapter houses and satellite houses. The City requires a CUP for a fraternity to hold any fraternity-related event. As noted, the CUPs have restrictive maximum occupancy limitations for gatherings, which are often impossible to meet for a standard fraternity event, including rush and sorority exchanges. It is illegal for them to hold any fraternity-related events within neighborhoods in the City, therefore, 16 of Cal Poly’s fraternities without CUPs cannot legally hold a fraternity-related event in the City’s neighborhoods. Many of the main chapter houses for those 16 fraternities are in R1 and R2 neighborhoods, and dozens of satellite houses that hold fraternity events are also in those neighborhoods. The City has told Cal Poly and Greek Life that it is illegal to hold fraternity-related events in the neighborhoods, but the fraternities hold them anyway. They usually get away without any consequences because there isn’t 15 coordination between SLOPD and Code Enforcement, and/or complaints for illegal fraternity events are not followed up on and/or are dismissed by the City. The fraternities and the address of the main chapter house are listed below: 1. Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd – CUP at least 2 recent noise citations 2. Alpha Gamma Rho 190 California Blvd (R4) 3. Alpha Sigma Phi 1218/1220 Bond Street (R1) 4. Beta Theta Pi 1327 Foothill Blvd (R4) 5. Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista Pl (R4) 6. Delta Sigma Phi 1684/1688 Mill Street (R2) 7. Delta Upsilon 720 Foothill Blvd (R4) 8. Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway Avenue (R1) 9. Lambda Chi Alpha 1264 Foothill Blvd – CUP to be re-reviewed soon 10. Phi Delta Theta 260 Chaplin Lane (R1) 11. Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI) 1237 Fredericks Street (R2) 12. Phi Kappa Psi 1335 Foothill Blvd - CUP 13. Phi Sigma Kappa 348/350 Hathway Avenue (R2) 14. Pi Kappa Phi 740 Foothill (County) & 66 Rafael Ln (R1) 15. Sigma Nu 1304 Foothill Blvd (R4) 16. Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays Street (R1) 17. Sigma Pi 1525 Slack Street (R1) 18. Theta Chi 1844 McCollum & 250 Grand - properties share backyards (R1) 19. Zeta Beta Tau 654 Graves Avenue (R4) 20. Pi Kappa Alpha (PIKE) “unofficially” at 138 Orange (R1) – will re-join Cal Poly Fall 2026 I urge you to take the opportunity to drive by those addresses, especially in the R1 and R2 neighborhoods, to see what they look like now versus when the fraternity members return next month and they are overrun with cars, beer pong/dye tables, trash, etc. Since there is an extremely limited number of fraternities with CUPs, now is the ideal time for the Planning Commission to adopt a uniform template for CUPs, with an outline of conditions, as recommended by the grand jury. A unform template would provide consistent expectations to Cal Poly’s Greek Life for fraternity operations within the city. The occupancy limitations would depend on the size of each fraternity property. One condition missing from recent CUPs is that the “CUP can be referred to the Planning Commission with receipt of substantiated written complaints from any resident or City employee, which includes information supporting a conclusion that a violation of the CUP or City ordinances or regulations has occurred.” This should be included in the updated template for all fraternity CUPs especially because it seems the “public nuisance” condition related to noise violations is not being utilized by Community Development, and a fraternity should not be allowed to get three noise citations within a year before the CUP is re-reviewed. It is important to include the condition above to ensure a CUP can be re-reviewed with a substantiated written complaint. The re-review should occur withing a reasonable amount of time, such as within 45- 60 days of the complaint. 16 There should also be a uniform policy for enforcement of the conditions of CUPs with regular communication between SLOPD and Code Enforcement, overseen by the City Manager. • SLOPD should have a list of documented fraternity houses, both legal and illegal properties, from Code Enforcement and the list should be updated regularly, not less than every 6 months. • Each of the property addresses of all documented fraternities – legal and illegal – should be in SLOPD’s database and SNAP should not be dispatched to those locations. • When a noise complaint or citation is received by SLOPD at any of the documented fraternity addresses – legal and illegal - Code Enforcement should be notified. • Documented Greek houses – legal and illegal - should not be allowed to wipe their citation history clean through SLOPD’s Early Removal Program. • Documented Greek houses – legal and illegal - should not be allowed to register parties through SLOPD to avoid response from SLOPD for noisy party complaints. • The terms of a CUP should be included in SLOPD’s database, such as the maximum occupancy at the property, and referenced by officers during response to noise complaints. To effectively address the ongoing issues with fraternities operating both legally and illegally within the city, Code Enforcement staff must be scheduled to work alternative hours, including evenings and weekends, as that is when most fraternity events occur. The City must hire an additional code enforcement officer, even if on a yearly contract basis, to specifically focus on the unique challenges posed by fraternity operations, ensuring compliance with the City’s zoning laws. The problem needs immediate attention to stop the severe damage caused by the ongoing, documented disruptions of Cal Poly’s Greek life to the City’s neighborhoods, outlined in the grand jury report, news articles, and an Editorial by The Tribune Editorial Board. Without the addition of another code enforcement officer, this issue is unlikely to be resolved, and the incredibly difficult and untenable living conditions will continue within the residential neighborhoods Given its scope and complexity, this matter requires the dedicated attention of a staff member as soon as possible for a proper and lasting solution. This issue is a “need” versus a “want” because it directly affects public safety. The fabric of the neighborhood has been drastically affected, and people are being forced to move away. The City has said it would cost approximately $100,000 for staffing an additional code enforcement staff member or contract employee. There is money in the FY 2025-2027 budget that could be reallocated from various “wants” to cover this need, to prevent the problem being allowed to continue to grow, as it has for the past four years. This issue cannot continue to be kicked down the road. In some areas, universities share the costs of such enforcement efforts, which could be a potential solution here, however if Cal Poly refuses to contribute, the City must find funding for a dedicated staff member to handle the Greek life issue within the city limits, including working weekends. Annual Noisy Party Calls to SLOPD / How Many Are at Fraternities? In the “Factual Problems with Grand Jury Report,” the City claims that noise calls have been reduced by 50% over the past 10 years. 17 Below is a chart that shows the number of annual calls to SLOPD for noisy parties over the past 10 years, which have not been reduced by 50%. The numbers were taken from a report prepared by SLOPD. Last year, I began tracking the SLOPD weekend dispatch logs and found that a large number of the noisy party calls to SLOPD were for parties at addresses documented as fraternity houses addresses. Most of the fraternities are operating illegally in the R1 and R2 neighborhoods. I sent reports to the City Council to show the negative impact that fraternity operations are having on the City’s neighborhoods. I also wanted to highlight the excessive resources expended by SLOPD and the City to respond to the large numbers of fraternity calls, to process the DACs and citations, and to communicate with Cal Poly per City policy. Some of my reports sent to the Council showing calls during a weekend at documented fraternities are shown below. The bold font indicates the address is the main chapter house: 1779 1571 1483 1439 1228 1518 1417 1409 1408 1422 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Annual Noisy Party Calls to SLOPD 18 19 These are not standard college parties. When the noisy fraternity parties are cited, there are usually large groups of people (50-150) noted on the citations, which is self-reported by the person getting the citation. When I sent the noise reports to Council, I continually explained how my family was kept awake throughout the weekend by fraternity parties and their guests who scream as they pass by our home throughout the night. Sometimes I sent videos. The City has known about this problem since at least the fall of 2021 and it has become worse throughout that time. The grand jury was able to witness the neighborhood firsthand, and presumably that information was a consideration in their findings. Please support the grand jury’s recommendation: 1. Compile a template for Conditional Use Permits, with conditions that apply to all fraternity/Greek life. Only 3 fraternities have CUPs right now and one of those three is up for re-review because of multiple violations of its CUP. Sororities do not have parties with alcohol, so their chapter houses do not have the same impact on neighborhoods as fraternities. However, there is value in having consistency in every CUP. This would be a one-time exercise, and would bring all 20 CUPs up to today’s standard, with consistency, so the conditions are clear every year to everyone each year. 20% of Cal Poly students are involved in Greek Life. Every fall, SLOPD meets with Greek life. If the conditions of every CUP are the same (except for the maximum number of guests which depends on the size of each property) it would simplify the process, make the conditions easy to understand, and promote behavior consistent with the conditions in the CUPs. 2. Require Code Enforcement staff to work evenings and weekends, when the fraternity events are happening, so they can enforce the conditions of the CUPs and cite illegal fraternity operations as they did on one weekend in January 2025, where Code Enforcement cited 12 fraternities. Thus far, the City has not been proactive about enforcement and the problem has grown over the past four years to the point where it is not sustainable for those who need to be able to rest. 3. Convene a plan to hire a code enforcement officer to proactively enforce the Municipal Code related to illegal fraternity operations to turn the tide on this enormous problem that is spreading to other neighborhoods in the City, has made the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property impossible, and is driving residents out of the neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration and for taking this problem seriously. I am extremely grateful to each of you for all your efforts. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Attachment: Phi Kappa Psi’s CUP &'   ڠڸ vz]IŒ„@^WX_o0  "  $w{`JAaYb:…?–4|%ZK‘}c.B~pdqL-[G=1eUVC€Df\,trug”> &Ž5s6x†‡h'MNi•(œˆ7yE‹)‰H˜‚;jkŠFOP/lQ8’*2'' ƒ<n—™RS#mš T9“+3! ›  ĝëąÝÊČ!ڸ׃ȕڸýΉīг˛ڸÑмϗͷԒԓ̗нϘڸоʼڸׄȖڸÒ̘S׼ڸпʽ٠ڸčťڸðؙԔڸöƌ̙ԕӗڸƥқРǚּؘǛڸĬڸҪؖΊ̚Ʀڸ ˻ʩڸT̛ϙڸի˼ȗڸ ÓрؒСƧ̜΋ڸ Ô˽ŤƍȘӜڸ сʾڸÛͧ׽ڸ çĭΌ΍"ڸ ª«ˆڸ þĮρڸ ĎׯșȚլ#ڸďŦڸñ؂̝Ԗڸ üƢ΂Ә$ڸÕįξˑтԋ̞İ%ڸ уϚڸ ï؝ڡڸ Ž &ڸœ‰¡ ʿфӝڸׅțڸҫؠԗUڸхˀڸƨцϛԘ̟ǜȜԆϜ˜ڸıҬҭΎ̠ƩIJלчϝڸĘڸ¢¦A˜Š½ڸŧǝڸ '' ġéáĈËĐ'ڸ ϞшםƪȝԙĢڸˁڸԚij̡ǞڸҮ؃ƎΏ̢ƫڸ˾ȞĴԉ˝١ڸ شȟӞȠڸ ڊڸϑǟȡڸ ƈڸ խ˿Ȣڸ שȣ(ڸ ŨǠڸ ͺڸ ֫̏Ȥڸ ϐźʷ ӟȥӚؚӠȦǡڸƏُڸΐĵص¾ڸũǢڸ٢ڸ B ٣ڸ  'Xڸ  ğċđ¿ڸ ׆ȧڸ ÿΑẒ́ϟ˞ڸ Öщςσ̤ԛզңϠڸ ƐĶԜ٥ڸ ǣ؄ΒِڸƬQ‹д̥ǤȨӡȩYǥڸķΓΔڸȪة̦ʛТǕ)ڸ ͻƭΕ؅Ȑϡ˟ڸׇȫڸ ծȬԝתъ™ّڸыӢ٦ڸ׈ȭڸŻ*үμƮ¬ĸϢկ+ڸ̧ϣ,հȮԀԞձȯǦڸҰƄȰԟ-ڸŪǧڸղ̀ȱڸȲتĹΖؕמьϤڸĺϥڸӣȳǖϕȴϦȍճ̨эеڸƑْڸԠֹ˒ڸ ұԁ՛ʜϧմȵǨڸƉڸդǩڸ́ȶƂϨˠڎڸ ڏ ' õ÷ĞÀڸĕêâĆÞäøĉ.ڸZÏ­ßڸìĖڸĊĒùòěãÜڸƣ›ڸյ̂ȷ®ڸ ĀΗڢͨУˡڸ×юτυ̩ԡ[Ԣ̪яϩڸҜːڸն̃ȸڸØ̫׾٧ڸŒ˂ڸēū ó؆ͩ՜ڸúƒ̬ԣҲڸƅڸ˖ζѐضԤ¯٨ڸڸ ڐڸ ڑڸ \°±]ڸ ڒڸ ړڸ ٩٪ڸ ڔڸ ڸ ڸ  '   '      ^  ' ' '  ĔȹƯןёϪڸ_ڸ `åͪФȓˢԥaڸ ÐƇǪڸ ؇ҳђ¼ڸ ڣíڸ׉Ⱥڸ Ȼد ǫȼϫưȽ/bڸכ ڸڤÙѓϖ̭Ԧԧ̮єϬڸ φŜȾԨڸ ׊ȿڸ ˃ѕΘΙcҩϭˣڸ ˓ϮȒЩ0˸²ڸ '  '' '  %'dڸ îe ėڸҴӤҧі1՝ʝǬڸҵӥї΃ɀƱշڸ̯ԩڸǗж΀ոɁϯչڸق׋ڸæɂϰɃӿ2ڸ āΚŬڸôǭڸęեڸӕҝΛ̰³Ʋ´̱ɄԪڸf§ڥ£٫ڸ ŭǮžg¨h¤ڸŮǯ Ÿqڸ èјءͫХˤڸàΜʞώʲպڸҶљΝ̲Ƴٓڸ©ڸijڸ¥ڸ׭ڸΞњǒջɅڸ ԫ׺ǰɆϱռڸ̄Ą؈ÁԬ ˚˥٬kӖӽҢ΄Âɇƴ״3ڸ»ֽԌ̳ս̴Ɉԭ٭ڸůDZڸԮћӦԇנɉԯ4ڸ ŰDzڸ ˳ϲɊӾοٔχŽɋڸĻڦ˙ќӧȎƓΟڧڸ̅ѝآ̵ϳ˦DͼڸўΠџ԰ڨҷԍه̶ϒ׿ڸվѠ׌ɌڸǔҸ؉Աڸlmڸ ٮڸE ڸ ڸÇٯڸ ڸµF ڕڸ 5 ڸ ģ Ĥ ڸ G Ãڸ ¶ڸĥH ' ' $' ' nڸ'  ڸ '''oڸ pڸ ƵҨdz̷סѡЮǴ@P ׍ɍڸҹӨѢә ʫٰأɎڸĦħڸٱ̸ԲڸکǘϴԳ̹թɏϵտڸط̺ڪڸ ֬̐ɐڸ Ġѣ϶ͬЦ˧Irćɑ˹ΡļעѤзڸƔʪ؊Դɒڸיʦڸ Ϸنƕʸڸѥ˄өʟ՞̻ǵʴږ̼Ե ڸǙͭ՟րʠЧցڸظ̽׎ڸ˷؋Һڸ̆ѦšԶ̾ϸ˨ڸψĽو̿ω؜ڸѧƶƷ؞űljٛڸsνϓ׵ګڸ׏ɓڸֺǶɔϊڸ JڬΈ˩ڸƸѨа˺ףиڸžɕڸNJҞ ՠ̀ժʳւڸĜאڸϹɖ·́˶ѩԊ˪ڸٲֶڭһʺɗԷÄľٳٞɘ׮K ԸװəɚփٴٕƀڸԹɛքƖĿǏ΅ ك‘’ڸ Rηθعڸ˅ѪӪڸtЯǷڸ ˔ɜى͂Ɨ͸̓օٖڸ غ̈́בuѫ،ֆڸƹӫɝƊϺ˫ٵڸŲڸ ؍ϻԺŀˆɞڸƺÆϼǸ͇͆ͅѬЫڸ ƻѭϋҼŁƼևڸ ٶէłɟʻڸ م΢      ‡ڮ“”ҽŃǐπڸϽگפخٷٸױڰٹڸųǹڸvԅƽֈ͈ҦٺڸѮˇڸԂӛԄڸ ѯϾLԻ͉־ڸԼҾ•řɠMԽÈڱ؎˴ڸńҿӀԎثŝ¸ ѰˈڸŴڸƋόѱƘͮιɡٻڸײӁڸ։ʮƾץϿڸӂΣŵڸԃԾ؛׶¹ڸ;ڸŅڸӬɢƆҠЀņƙ֊ɣЁϔƚɤӭټڸѲˉڸըŇNjʡ6Կڸٽپ˗ӮڸӯɥՀ͊Ǻʱ֋Ձڸwڸ '  ÌՂڸƿѳЂǻ͋צѴЃɦǼ7ٿ֭̑ɧڀؤɨڸلΤΥځЄѵ֌ڂ̇śڸַʨڸˬɩЅɪӰňΦڸ̈ɫŞ֍̉8ڸգˊʤֵٗ9ڸڲǽڸػɬΧˋʼnӱɭڃѶ ˌxӃʵΨɮyڸκس˭ڸ ѷӲڸ ͽڸ֎̖ʥڸ ذǀ͵б؀ڗơʢٟŊ؏ՃɯڄڅǑҡЭ֮ͯѸйN ѹІڸגɰڸĚՄɱڸĂָ֏ΩΪΫ͌֐ڳĨzżӳѺجş{ӄάŋʯڸ έ͹͍׷ڸѻЇچדɲڸ Јؔƛɳ֑Յڸ ѼˍڸӅʹкڸ ţѽؼɴǾڸ ѾЉڸՆֿ͎:ڸӴɵՇ׳ǁ֒|ڸ Ś֓}͏ر֔͐ɶՈ;ڸژڸŌЬ~ڸ –͑ڇЊ—͒֕ڸӆѿ֖ɷЋקŠڸ ȌʹՉ׬ƜŶڴʣաڸ֗ڸ Ќɸ͓˵ƝҀԐڸ ÍՊڸǂҁЍǿ͔͕֘҂ЎɹȀ <ڸ֯̒ɺڸӇӵ҃ӈ҄Ջɻȁڸإɼڸ΁ڸōӉӊӶ҅ӋԈŎ׀ڸŏ֙ڵ֚̊ºɽڸ€ՌؗɾnjְڸήÅÉǓֱͰ҆ЏڸƞڈɿǍئʀڸ͖֛ڸ͗ՍڸίҤ ֜ʁȂڸͿڸڙڸ' ǃΰ҇Վʂڸӌ͘҈يͱϏͲ֝٘ڸֲҟڸÚŐαڸă҉βٙڸƃȃڸҊֳ̓ʃӷڸՏ׻ڶʄА֞Oύ=͙ʅБׂڸؐՐʆՑڸښŷȄڸ̋ҋا͚Вˮڸ‚ڸ !"' ' '''''''  ÎՒڸDŽҌГȑרҍДʬ>ڸ֟̌ʇڸӍԏҎՓʈȅڸʉًDžʊӎ֠͛ڛҏЕƒՔڸ֡Ґڸהʋڸ ĩӏſ·Ъ˯ڸőЖȆڸȔحʌؽŖٜڸՕֻȏڸšγґؾڸˎҒӸڸ Зʰʍȇڸ˕ʎٌ͜Ɵ͝δ͞؁ڸ Ȉؑʏڸ ֢ғڸ ڷՖ֣͟ʐڸdžҔл֤ӹŒ͠И׸ڸŸȉڸƁڸ LJҕЙ՗͡՘֥ʑК֦ڸؿ͢וڸז„ʒڸʓٍͣՙ֧ͤЛ˰ڸМʔͥ˲ƤӺ̍Җҥڸ …ڸ Ӑœ׹ڸŗШȊڸբ؟ӑûԑڸĪƠٚڸחʶَͶвִٝڸҗˏڸטʕ?بʖڸ֨ҘڸLjŘӒ׫ڸـ̔ͳǎ̕ڸفҙؓλȋڸ̎ʗ֩ӓډڸŢεʘزŔ֪ʙڸךʧ #' Нʚʭڸ˘ӻڸҚОڜ՚ׁͦӔŕӼΆП˱†ڸ ڸ ڝڸ ڞڸڟڸ    %+) )4,.*(!//",+4/,&20!,4,4  4 4  4 4,-1#%'4$34  4    5  &öXîö    !ö" ö   ö T ö$,ö5äöS«Lö < ö$‹P$ö öö5¥.ö š ö öö   ö öö   ö ö"½ö   ö  ööö öö ö" §öööö    . +-ö >ö V!B'ö ö öö ö âö  öIöYö;*:ˆ‡ö A ö ööö  ö $-Uö ö\ öö2Rmö  0ö7 !ö  ööö ö ö'ö~ö =ö   'ö ö / öxïöö %[k‘ö   ö(ö ö ̕öÜɦ  ðööö ¬ ö4 ööö ö   öö )ö.ö   iööö öö  ö ö ö öJö   ­öö ö‰;}  ö ß ö Cö1ö @ ö =ö   1ö ö öA ö ö ö%lö¢/y#¾ X  öœÎ àö ¤ ¹ö öñÝöz ö  Š€.ö @b8&ö ö"ö 2QKö :ö D_ö  Mö ö   öö¯ A ö   ¨ö' öö  pö Èöö   ö  ö ' ö ö Äöj Œ‚.ö  ö ]é ö Íc’ö ö ö Ð ö ö ö ?Å ö Cfö Æ 8qö ö å   ö b  ,ö öö ! ö“ö ´ö  D+B`Nö % ö @ Ë3ö,ö ' ör% ö ©ã0ö ;-V!cö  ö  ö ö  ö D&8ö To /ºö   ö öö d  ö   /ö _%ö   ö   ö( !ò ö  öG  Ž—ö / ö  %öö d ö öªö   ö Bö %[kö ö ¶Øöö =  ö !!öö ö  ö  öö ö &1ö # Úö#9   ö^ ö  ö ² ö ö 7ö  ö  ö  ööç,ö  áLö,ö ) >ö èsö  Nö  ìö F 9öö¸ö  Óöö   eö 0ö ö ö ^ ö  ö ö  öööFö#4  ®{#  -  Q-JWö ö  ö  8ö gö óö  tö ?ö  öö Ñ öö ö "+ 6Ea”µ ö·öÏ  ö\æHö4ö ööö™7¿ö˜ ö Õ¡ *)5"  ö 0ö  »³ !ö   öööö # ö #  öö   ö 3 ö "9Êö ö ö ( ö  ö:ö  ö öêÁö öG+ö ö "  ö ö 2$*Kö 6Eë]ö*ö )ƒööuÒö „ö S ö   ö H  ö vö ö  öö öôö ö õ`ö  ö  ( 1+ö  Oö RUö3ö +Mö  ö g–öÛ öö6ÖÙ ö À9ö  ö  ö"  ö ö   ! "&ö   öö  ö2ö$$nöGöÃö  öHö1ö öö $Pö ö ö*ö)w ö j7×íö C  ööö&&|#  iö#f  ö4öö 0 (  ö  Ôö ÂÞ…I*†  O >ö6E hö öe ö ±¼  ö  öö ö ( ööö› ° aöF' Çö  < Zöžö  öŸ   ö ö?höWZ  öY  3ö <ö ö £ )  "!, #(($ ,(%*)& ,',  , ,   &$), +,    3XFš:ttfY?9pˆš…X9efš t|s’\DFš<pF…š9pDšˆFfFtXspFšpwo=F|…š sMš xF†tsp†Y=fFšuFy†sp…š ˆsš‰XF #sll‘p`‰–š$F’FgstlFpˆš$Ft9zˆpFp‰š:pDš2+./$š-F\VX>szXssDš2Fz’Z@F…š,:p9VFzšspš: –F:zf–š=9…\… š1F…tsp…\=fFštFz…sp…š…X9hfš=Fš:’9\8:=fFšD‘z\pVš;*(šF’Fp‰‡š9pDš:‰šzF9…sp:=iFšXs‘{‡ ˆsšzF@F\’Fš9pDšX<pDgFš@sltf9\pˆ…  4XFš5…Fš/FzlZ‰š…g:ggš=FšxF”`F•FDš=–š‰XFš#sllp\‰–š$F’FfstlFp‰š$ZzF@ˆszšLszšBsltg\:p@F “\Xš @spD\ˆ\sp…š sMš9ttzs’:fšszšˆsšDFˆFƒ\pFš•XFˆXFzš9šlsD\Na@9‰ZspšsMš ˆXFš5…Fš/Frq`‰š [… pF@F…‡<–š7Štspš…\W\Na@9p‰š@X:pVFšˆsšˆXFš™‰Fm\ˆ–šzFtzF…FpˆHDš\pšˆXFš2ˆ9MLš1FtsšD9‰FD )pFš š šszš\pšˆXFšF’FpˆšsMš9š@X9pVFš\pšs•pFz…X\tš•X\@Xšl:–šzF…‘g‰š\pšDF’Z9ˆ\spšO}slš‰XF tzscHC‰šDF…@z_tspšszš:ttzs’Kšth:p…  4X\…š5…Fš/F‚\‰šB:qš=FšzFMF€€FEšˆsšXFš/f:pp\pVš#sll\……\spšMszš~I’ZF•šZMšDFˆFrpZpFDš=–š ‰XF #sllpZˆ–š$F’FfstlFpˆš$\zF@ˆszštspšzH@F\tˆšsMš…=…ˆ:pˆ\9ˆFDš•z`ˆˆFpšBsltf:\pˆ…šTslš:p– @\‰\˜Fpš#sDFš%pMsz@HlFp‰š.P\@Fzš0sf\@Fš $Ft9{ŽlFpˆšFltfs–FFšszš#;gš/sf–š Fltgs–FF •X]@XšZp@jDF…š`pMsm:ˆ[spš9pDszšF’\DHp@Fš…‘ttsz\pVš:š@sp@g…\spš X9ˆš :š’\sf:‰`spšsMš‰XZ… 6‡Fš/Gzn_ˆšszšsMš#Yˆ–šs{D\p:pBF…šszšzFVf:Œ\sp…š:ttgZ@9=fFšˆsšˆXFštzstF‰—šszšˆXFšstFz;ˆ\spšsM ‰XFš=…\pF‡…šX;‡šsA?xzFD š "ˆšˆXFš‰\lFšsMšˆXFš5…Fš/Fzl\ˆšxH’\F•šˆsšFp…zFš@sltf\;p@Fš XF…Fš@spD\ˆ\sp…š@spD\ˆZsp…šsMš9tt{s’:fšl:–š=Fš:DDFDšDFgF‰FDšlsD\RFDšszšˆXFšvl\ˆšl:– =Fš~I’sdFD  4XFš&~<ˆF„\ˆ–š5…Fš/Fn\ˆš…X:ffš:‘ˆsl9ˆ\@:gh–š=FšzF’\F•FDš=–š‰XFš/g9ppZpVš#sln\……^spš_p spFš–F:zšTslšD9ˆFš:ttzs’9fšˆsšFp…‘~Jš@sltfY9p@Fš•\‹Xš@spDZˆZsp… š "ˆšˆXFšzF”`F•šXF9z\pV ˆXFš/g:ppZpVš#sllZ……Zspšl:–š:DDšDFfFˆJšszšlsD\Uš@spD_‰_sp‡šsMš9ttzs”9f      !^7--7V"3 ^7^>=Q#>23P^>^#3-Q^7?^#67@4K#73-^9$D;7EJ^731^!W^F>U^L7^ #S^ K!^99-#3K^^  >-^'^7^7K!?^ #OY^><N #>2KG^K. K^/T"0-^:-X^K7^K)C^9>8+K^!#F^*J^37K^ % K5^K7^^ 3^!RFK#U^-#FK^F^7K!A^?=$#?23KH^2W^^#5K(&^Q>#Z ^K!^9-3^!,^ 9B7M[]\I^        š š/f9p…š…‘=l\ˆˆFDšMszš:š=‘\fDZpVštFn\ˆš…X:ffšZp@fDFš‰XFšgs@9ˆZsqšsMš:š…@zFFpFDšˆz:…XšFp@fs…‘~I š /g9p…š…=l\ˆˆIDšMszš9š=‘\fDZpVš tFzl\ˆš…X9ffš\pBgDFš’Fz`Q@:ˆ]spšsMš9DDzF……š ‘…FšMszš ! 'ssˆX\fg /f:p…š…‘=l\ˆˆFDšMszš9š=‘\fD\pVštFr\ˆš…X:ffš\p@f‘DFš’FbS@:ˆ\spšsMš‡FšsMš…t9@Fšk9=FgFDš9… 2‰sz9VFš1sslš &6+5<-I!;0D1?=I)C #F94@ >I %' I I *I II "ABE/2738I :GH,$ (.I  I ·Ă͡łϪبWب ӫ֫ƑΫ̫՘ՙȌLJب ׾ʳјҦب ĝب ź֬̈͢Lj̉Ћب ѻȍΜԶ̊Էب Ӭ˟Ğͣͤب žηƘ֭ͥljȎب ӭˠБѼب NJӞר̬θ˅Ӯب 'ğ׿ιNjب Գ ȏ ( ƙ ̋ ˁ ƚ Ġ Ը ̌ ѵ ӯ ب љʴب Ń ϫ ġҢ )יnjب øíă×ب Ÿ²æب ʵ̭ҹȐب ԴκЎɺҺب ӰװӱԹȑΝgب        ¸˜ب Đ˩Ȓب Ǎɻńǎب؀לѹب Вλب ՚˪ȓب Ȕ׫̍Ӳ՛̮Ϭˆب þŦب ֡ȕȖhӳب ԱĢͦͧب Żȗب Ӵģˀͨױب ѽiһֿμɼǷب ؁ԺГ ՜˫Șب ԬŤև͐ӵ*ʿƛԻ Ѷب Дʪب՝ˬșب ßÁ̎֩ب ÝЕνjÂԝ՞ب Ŷ+بĤب kƜЖξǸ̯֜њϭب Зʫب՟˭Țب ż͈֮ΙȊοˇبѾțÃӥ͌Լlب ĕȜب ŽםÄͩǏ̏πˈب ѿȝӛΰ̐֌بҀ,òŠЇӶ؂ب ӷˡŅΌͪب ÅӸ̆מب šЈǐبρИԽȞب ֔ȟب ԞƶѺȠب ЙʬبҁҼћ҂К ӹɽǹ ب ҃ҽ׀ς̑σˉب ņϮǑب Ӻ̅ب ؃͖ǂ֯Ǻɾب ĥب ҄Ҿ ؄bcǃЏ֦Ɲՠ̰ќϯب ΞȡȢԾÆ̒τˊب žȣυך؅Ȥφب աˮȥب à֪̓ Þҿ̱ԟբب Ňϰǒب ҅Ӏ̲׏Ħֆʟب ƞȦӁգ̔ʶ̳ȧǓب ňդſЛҧ͜Կب Ɵ؆Мχ֣Ơ֑ǔب ՀНب ОѴͫȨÇեɿmب Ԡʼn̕Ǖب ҆ҨְЍψˋ™ب Ĕ̖̃ӻب ןПҩfب ơؠРׁôÈǖب ƀȩب -Ƣ_ѝС.Ҫǻ̴ϱħՁȪǗب Ŋϲǘب ƣТΟ҇ͬȫ$զȬǙ ب ֱ֚˚˯ب է˰ؤبá̗ը׻بÙӂƁУωӼՂب ĄӃ̵̘ÿب թў Ƃֲ̙ͭǚ̚ϊˌب ҈ȭϳϴ̶֍ب Ĩң̛ͮƤŢօ̈́Фϋ ŋϵǼʷبџӄب҉ȮӦnب ºoب ęʛب ʸ̷϶Ō΍ب /ǽʀժō̜Ύԡب Хʭب ի˱ȯب ҊЦӅѠ؇ׂԢب ҋĩא͚ˍب ĪǛ͞RşǀȰόՃب ֊Ѳ  ąŎӆ̸͟Ϸˎب Ċ ҌīЧȱب ب ӽˢĬͯͰب ̇ÉύШÔب լ˲Ȳب ȳ׬̝Ե͗ˏ ³»ب Ā ŧب խӇʁȴب pūǜب ӨՄب ׽Щώ0ȵqب Ėȶب ƥͱʢʾӗЪΠب ďĭƷʂب ب ֋ѳب ֕ȷب ʥːȸب Ыʮب ҍĮ Ρţ׼ب Ɩب ӈʃǾֳƦȹǝب  ¾Õب ֠  ҎӚ͋Ьט͓ǞȺب ťȆͅՅ̞ЭЊͲب 1ƧͳʣȻب ε׉ǟب ծ˳ȼب ֤Ƚrب Ûب įʹՆȾӧկʄÊب ΢Źȿҫ̟ũب Ӿִƨˣب sŷب ƃŏԣɀب βب ƄɁب ׎ب ׇ֛ب ֙͏ӿب ֢ŐϸԤʯ؈ֈ͑ЮϏب űبİtب ėɂب ؉®S2ֵ͔ȇ͆Ќب ҏʡ¡ϐ̠Շب Ґ͵őϹب Ԁ׃ƒί͊֨Ͷب ԁ̄Θب γΚЉǠɃبıͷ͸ب ʽ͛ب ǿʅ֎̹ΏԥبʹѡҬبհ˴ʆبґЯӉѢֶԂ¢بҒIJבʇӊب3ԦʈƩՈ̡аϑبŬǡبձӋŭԃ̢։͒ѷبŴ׊Ǣبղ˵Ʉ ب֥ʠب I ½u đ˶ɅبԄ̣֒بғ͹ŒϺبԅˤбַΐȀب 4ƪ&Ɇ’œҭΑ“5ײب Ԇ˷ѣנب Ŕϻǣب؊ϒвճʉبմƓ6ͺѤƸijƅгд ʰب֖ɇب؋׋ȉҮ˛ӌѥ׌Ǥبָ֝ͻ̺յ̻Ɉԇ7£ب ˞بΣɉՉإ8 ɊͼʊƹՊӍ̼ƫŪب ԰͍Ƭɋ9بŕϼǥبŖϽ׳بе:ն˸ĴƔѦזʋب،ءжүبƆɌΒ סب˝ӘĵǦɍب͕;ҔӜѰגɎΤɏvϓ֧ب շ˹ĶՋبƭзׄΓǧبƗبķʺʻɐƮՌʌȁبƇ¤״ ո˺ɑبҕөиԈʦبDŽϔԉչӎׅƯϕйϖب ѧӏ؍بӐʍҤ׈ɒǨبҖųˑبưͽɓŲϗƱɔԊwب <¿šب Üب ŗϾƺ˻кӤب תɕɖ;ب ԭαҗب лҰب мнϿƻVɗպʎب džӠب ԋ˼ŘͿ΀ب ƈɘب ěҘʱ` כǩəǪب xĸՍبՎ˥ɚب ɛË׭̤Ԍ֞Ϙ˒ب ƲaϙƼӑʏջʐب ҙĹǫب ˂ұ ċ=Қřƽɜب¹¥ب Ē˽ɝب қ>ҲئҜо?@ԍɞeبȋ͇חTɟעĺ׵ب ʩɠА̥пϚب̦Ԏب ϛ؎рՏبӒʑҥΥәʝǬبŚЀǭبyԏÌƉсֹ¦z Ɗɡب§ǁΗ”¯Φ¨ϜĻՐɢǮبռѨب˦тϝуҳب ŰبҝӓʒԧAʨɣب ؏ս˾Öɤب ɥׯ̽Ԑ֟˓ب ñبÀ  ć Ũب Ցӣʞب °UфƾśՒʓȂب ļՓب վ˿ɦب ƋʔŜȃب ֗ɧب ԑҡƳ Ĝب Ęɨب ף˧ʕʖب Ԓտѩҟب хҴ ƴֺӡآب ԓ˨цֻ΁ǯب!ƌɩب ÍԮՔبƍĽƿ͠ب´¼XY ˄Χبր̀ɪب ɫ׮͉ԫBՕ̾Ё˔بƕʗɬ{ب āبζց̿чϞبƎ׶بâш|δ̀ԨԔ©ѸʘӔبõּ΂֏͎}Cب ԕɭDžϟǰɮDZبƏ ׷بãDщΨΩ̧Ԗԗ~̨ъϠɯҵ ب ðפ΃بҶEبŮDzبыϡب ֘ɰب ˃΄ΔѪؐץ͘˕بӝѱ΅Ά Ƶľ·Έب דь֓Î ب ØĚĎ Zاب"بd —ب  ؑùª بؒب эؓؔπFêԘ[G‚        ĈëîĉÐ Ú ؕ샄بüؖ بؗب…†ب\ؘ‡ب]ؙ äюάέӕԩˆبöؚ׆Ε֐ÑHبï я؛צΖ•ɱҷIب ԙ؜͝ϢJ˖ɲקĿΉdzKب ÷ɳ׸ʜӖLب çӟɴب Č؝ՖɵהʧѐϣMبŝЂǴبΛӪёÒϤ úђϥɶب ûѫЃ^‰؞ب ýЄʙب ḗɷبʼѬŠӢ˜ѭ͙˗ب›ɸԲNΊ؟ֽ–ւ̩ѓϦبשԚ بҞŸԯبŞЅǵب‹ŀǶѮҠ՗ʚȄبփ̂́ԛب «µOȈ׹بأєʲ#Œóب׍Pب±œ¬¶Ž èѕ־˘بéŁו­ȅԪ‘іϧQبčʤҸɹ%քŵب Ć΋ůІ͂Ϩ ˙بåѯΪή̓ب Ԝ̪їϩبƐ׺Óب  1 From:CityClerk Sent:Friday, August 22, 2025 10:14 AM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Planning Commission Hearing re: Grand Jury Report BCC: Council All Hello, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the Commissioners. It is now placed in the Planning Commission public archive for the August 27, 2025 Regular Meeting. City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 From: kathie walker < Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 9:52 AM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Cc: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Planning Commission Hearing re: Grand Jury Report Dear Planning Commissioners, After my husband and I read the City's response to the grand jury report, we lost hope and decided to move out of the neighborhood. The fraternities have made it impossible for my husband to get rest for work or for us to have peace in our lives from Thursday to Sunday. This has been an extremely painful decision and we are still struggling, as we move from our longtime home where we raised our sons. I put together a lot of background information that is relevant to the situation and have attached it to this email. I hope you will read it because it is all important. You, as planning commissioners, have been instrumental in making change and I am extremely thankful for that. Please take some time this weekend to read through the information provided. My husband and I are very busy moving and will likely not be at the meeting but hope you will read the information and consider everything as you make your recommendation. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 6:38 PM To:Francis, Emily; Stewart, Erica A; Marx, Jan; Boswell, Mike; Shoresman, Michelle; E-mail Council Website Cc:Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Stewjenkins Info Subject:Clarification re: Question at Council Meeting During the Council meeting, Emily Francis asked SLOPD Chief Scott about calls/complaints for noisy parties. I wanted to clarify, if multiple calls are made to SLOPD for a party at the same location, it is only logged in SLOPD's database as one call, despite the higher number of calls made for a party. Most of the time, calls for noisy parties are cleared as 'negative violation' or 'no report' (which is the same as a negative violation) and sometimes are cleared as 'unable to locate'. For example, in 2024, there were 1422 complaints for noisy parties, 336 were given a warning (DAC) and 180 were given citations, which is about 13% of all noise complaints. If you dig a little deeper, a large percentage of the 180 citations were issued to fraternity operations in the neighborhoods and many had 50-150+ people. I have emailed Chief Scott about the data not being correct when multiple households are affected and call SLOPD to complain about a noisy party, and he responded that it is similar to any calls made to SLOPD, for example, a car accident. It will only show one call even if many people call in about that accident. I hope that answers the question more clearly. 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 9:47 PM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: Clarification re: Question at Council Meeting Thank you for your additional experience and context on this. I’m sure you also heard the question and response at the end of the discussion where Mayor Stewart asked about the relationship between the number of calls and the citations and the chief said they continue to work on refining and making that data available with the help of some GIS support. We continue to keep working on improvements and will continue to do so. Thanks again. Michelle Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 6:37:30 PM To: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < ; Stewjenkins Info < Subject: Clarification re: Question at Council Meeting During the Council meeting, Emily Francis asked SLOPD Chief Scott about calls/complaints for noisy parties. I wanted to clarify, if multiple calls are made to SLOPD for a party at the same location, it is only logged in SLOPD's database as one call, despite the higher number of calls made for a party. Most of the time, calls for noisy parties are cleared as 'negative violation' or 'no report' (which is the same as a negative violation) and sometimes are cleared as 'unable to locate'. For example, in 2024, there were 1422 complaints for noisy parties, 336 were given a warning (DAC) and 180 were given citations, which is about 13% of all noise complaints. If you dig a little deeper, a large percentage of the 180 citations were issued to fraternity operations in the neighborhoods and many had 50-150+ people. I have emailed Chief Scott about the data not being correct when multiple households are affected and call SLOPD to complain about a noisy party, and he responded that it is similar to any calls made to SLOPD, for example, a car accident. It will only show one call even if many people call in about that accident. I hope that answers the question more clearly. 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 9:59 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Clarification re: Question at Council Meeting Thank you for your email, Michelle! I was a little confused about what Erica was asking. I initially thought she was referring to households making the calls to SLOPD. I will watch the video again to see if I can gain a better understanding. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be able to watch the meetings from home. P.S. The Sinsheimer neighborhood has been FANTASTIC! :) Quiet nights and our family has been able to sleep. I still feel concerned for my former neighbors in Alta Vista and Monterey Heights, and hope the Council helps to solve the problem. It is a huge relief to have peace in our lives again. Everyone deserves the ability to rest and sleep. On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 9:47 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Thank you for your additional experience and context on this. I’m sure you also heard the question and response at the end of the discussion where Mayor Stewart asked about the relationship between the number of calls and the citations and the chief said they continue to work on refining and making that data available with the help of some GIS support. We continue to keep working on improvements and will continue to do so. Thanks again. Michelle Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 6:37:30 PM To: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < ; Stewjenkins Info < Subject: Clarification re: Question at Council Meeting During the Council meeting, Emily Francis asked SLOPD Chief Scott about calls/complaints for noisy parties. I wanted to clarify, if multiple calls are made to SLOPD for a party at the same location, it is only logged in SLOPD's database as one call, despite the higher number of calls made for a party. Most of the time, calls for noisy parties are cleared as 'negative violation' or 'no report' (which is the same as a negative violation) and sometimes are cleared as 'unable to locate'. For example, in 2024, there were 1422 complaints for noisy parties, 336 were given a warning (DAC) and 180 were given citations, which is about 13% 2 of all noise complaints. If you dig a little deeper, a large percentage of the 180 citations were issued to fraternity operations in the neighborhoods and many had 50-150+ people. I have emailed Chief Scott about the data not being correct when multiple households are affected and call SLOPD to complain about a noisy party, and he responded that it is similar to any calls made to SLOPD, for example, a car accident. It will only show one call even if many people call in about that accident. I hope that answers the question more clearly. 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 7:52 AM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: Clarification re: Question at Council Meeting I’m so glad you are enjoying your new home. I continue to be concerned as well and look forward to more discussion and trying to hold Cal Poly accountable as good partners. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 9:59:20 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Clarification re: Question at Council Meeting Thank you for your email, Michelle! I was a little confused about what Erica was asking. I initially thought she was referring to households making the calls to SLOPD. I will watch the video again to see if I can gain a better understanding. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be able to watch the meetings from home. P.S. The Sinsheimer neighborhood has been FANTASTIC! :) Quiet nights and our family has been able to sleep. I still feel concerned for my former neighbors in Alta Vista and Monterey Heights, and hope the Council helps to solve the problem. It is a huge relief to have peace in our lives again. Everyone deserves the ability to rest and sleep. On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 9:47 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Thank you for your additional experience and context on this. I’m sure you also heard the question and response at the end of the discussion where Mayor Stewart asked about the relationship between the number of calls and the citations and the chief said they continue to work on refining and making that data available with the help of some GIS support. We continue to keep working on improvements and will continue to do so. Thanks again. Michelle Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 6:37:30 PM 2 To: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Sandra Rowley < ; Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < ; Stewjenkins Info < Subject: Clarification re: Question at Council Meeting During the Council meeting, Emily Francis asked SLOPD Chief Scott about calls/complaints for noisy parties. I wanted to clarify, if multiple calls are made to SLOPD for a party at the same location, it is only logged in SLOPD's database as one call, despite the higher number of calls made for a party. Most of the time, calls for noisy parties are cleared as 'negative violation' or 'no report' (which is the same as a negative violation) and sometimes are cleared as 'unable to locate'. For example, in 2024, there were 1422 complaints for noisy parties, 336 were given a warning (DAC) and 180 were given citations, which is about 13% of all noise complaints. If you dig a little deeper, a large percentage of the 180 citations were issued to fraternity operations in the neighborhoods and many had 50-150+ people. I have emailed Chief Scott about the data not being correct when multiple households are affected and call SLOPD to complain about a noisy party, and he responded that it is similar to any calls made to SLOPD, for example, a car accident. It will only show one call even if many people call in about that accident. I hope that answers the question more clearly. 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Sunday, September 14, 2025 7:23 PM To:Marx, Jan; Boswell, Mike; Francis, Emily; Stewart, Erica A; Shoresman, Michelle; E-mail Council Website Subject:City Council Meeting 9/16, Agenda 9b Grand Jury Response Attachments:City of SLO Response to Grand Jury Findings.pdf Dear Councilmembers, The City has published a lot of information in its pushback against the Grand Jury report and denial of all of the Grand Jury's Findings, including 27 pages of "clarifications" and a 14 page formal response to the Grand Jury. It is difficult to adequately address the large amount of information without overwhelming you but many of the City's claims are false, misleading, or do not tell the whole story. I have attached some information and documentation so that it is on the record, and hope that you will consider it in editing the City's response to the Grand Jury. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 Dear City Councilmembers Stewart, Shoresman, Francis, Marx and Boswell, It’s an understatement to say that I am disappointed in the City’s response to the Grand Jury’s investigation and report. The Grand Jury’s Findings are an opportunity for learning and humility, with the goal for improvement. Denying the facts of the current situation, outlined by the Grand Jury’s Findings, does nothing to help the residents of San Luis Obispo. It’s not possible to address every issue in the City’s 27 pages of “clarification” and 14-page response to the Grand Jury. I will try to be as brief as possible to cover some of the main points, while including documentation. Here is the first sentence and paragraph of one of the complaints to the Grand Jury about the City’s lack of enforcement of the City’s laws pertaining to Cal Poly’s fraternities, which pondered that perhaps money was the driving factor behind the City’s lack of enforcement: “Dear Grand Jury of San Luis Obispo County, Something is amiss in San Luis Obispo as the leadership of the city, the police department, the community development and code enforcement department have failed to enforce the municipal code and have ignored legitimate complaints related to non-enforcement of the law… One wonders if there is a financial incentive, such as money received by the City from Cal Poly, that has motivated the City to ignore its own laws and zoning regulations. There is no other logical explanation.” And here are recent statements from the City of San Luis Obispo and a key Cal Poly SLO staff member about the relationship between the City and Cal Poly. The first sentence on City’s website regarding the Grand Jury Report / Town -Gown relationship says: “Cal Poly is a major contributor to the community's vibrancy and culture and is a major economic engine on California’s Central Coast, according to a recent report by REACH that assessed the economic impact of Cal Poly.” (link provided) A s tatement of Courtney Kienow, Director of Relations and Economic Development, Office of Jeffrey Armstong, President of Cal Poly, at a City Council meeting on 2/4/2025: “As you all know, we are joined at the hip, the City and the university.” It is apparent that the monetary gain from the City’s relationship with Cal Poly is a driving factor for the City, even if Cal Poly’s actions within the city limits are detrimental to the City’s residents. The Grand Jury is comprised of 19 impartial jurors who have nothing to gain or lose from Cal Poly or the City of San Luis Obispo. They investigated the City of San Luis Obispo over the course of at least six months. Prior to their service, all grand jurors take the following oath: “I do solemnly swear and affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the State of California, and all laws made pursuant to and in conformity therewith, will diligently inquire into, and true presentment make, of all public offenses against the people of this state, committed or triable within this county, of which the grand jury shall have or can obtain legal evidence…” The investigation included gathering evidence through interviews, primarily with City staff. The City Manager said the City provided thousands of documents to the Grand Jury. The jurors, without bias or the influence of receiving any sort of benefit, pay, or relationship from the City or Cal Poly, and considering all evidence, concluded their report with six Findings which were not favorable to the City. 2 The Findings boiled down to the fact that the City has not adequately enforced its laws which has harmed the residents in the neighborhoods in the northern part of the City, and the City was not completely cooperative or transparent with the Grand Jury. In response, the City denies every Finding made by the Grand Jury. I have included some of the Findings below and included some documented facts, and hope you will reconsider the City’s denial, and adopt the Recommendations to actually SOLVE the issues rather than scratching the surface and sweeping the matter under the rug because of the discomfort of doing the right thing. Begin holding Cal Poly accountable for hiding the fraternity addresses, invest more in code enforcement to competently handle this problem to restore the quality of life to City residents. Finding 1. Prior to 2025, the city failed to effectively provide a multi-pronged, cohesive approach to manage or shut down large unsanctioned, costly and unruly events such as St. Fratty’s Day. This created an unsafe environment, with increasing size of unruly crowds, property damage, injuries and public disturbances. City Response: (F1) The City disagrees with this finding. St. Fratty’s Day The City’s response to the Grand Jury ignores the lack of enforcement for the illegal street parties during St. Fratty’s Day beginning in 2022, when it re-emerged for the first time since 2015. That was the only previous time that thousands of people overtook the streets of the San Luis Obispo neighborhood for St. Fratty’s Day. In 2015, the event ended shortly after 6 a.m. because a roof collapsed, resulting in a mass casualty incident. The City’s response to the Grand Jury does not address the mayhem in 2022. A video of the event is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUH9wORd5ls The City also does not address the mayhem in 2023. A video of the event is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYkaOsCwBbA The Grand Jury’s Findings included the City’s response to St. Fratty’s Day since 2022 yet the City does not address those previous years, shown in the videos linked above. The Grand Jury was correct in its Finding that SLOPD was not prepared for those events, and it created an unsafe environment with increasing size of unruly crowds, etc. in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Initially, the City claimed it was prepared for St. Fratty’s Day in 2024 but now admits that SLOPD did not have an adequate plan that year. However, after the event in 2024, SLOPD Police Chief Rick Scott told the City Council that SLOPD did have an adequate plan that the plan worked, and he downplayed the chaos of what really happened. The truth came out later when residents publicly shared their criticism of SLOPD through first-hand accounts of being terrified, being trapped in their homes, being dismissed or hung up on when they called 9-1-1, and SLOPD failing to render aid if/when officers finally arrived at a property. There was significant property damage that cost more than the reported amount of damage of Cal Poly’s dorms, but the cost to the neighborhood was never highlighted. Cars were vandalized, fences trampled, gutters ripped off houses, a sewer line collapsed in the front yard of a property under the weight of so many people, bushes and landscape were trampled. Multiple people hung on electrical lines which were accessed after they trespassed on someone’s rooftop, and the electrical and cable lines were ripped from the house. A person fell from the line and reportedly broke his arm. Yards were used as toilets and littered with broken glass and trash. Local emergency rooms were filled with young adults 3 with alcohol intoxication. There were non-stop sirens in the neighborhood with City Fire responding to emergencies in our neighborhoods, mostly related to alcohol poisoning, including unconscious people on 1 and 2-story rooftops. Each year, SLOPD leadership assured the neighborhood group that they had an adequate plan, but unfortunately, they did not and there were extremely adverse impacts to the people who live in the neighborhood for three years in a row due to inadequate planning and enforcement by SLOPD. St. Fratty’s Day was not a novel event in 2022. It was previously celebrated on a smaller scale and has always been the Saturday before Cal Poly’s winter finals. Yet SLOPD failed to monitor the situation beforehand. There were many posts on the Friday before the St. Fratty’s Day event on Saturday, 3/12/2022 that showed a large scale would happen in the neighborhood. SLOPD did not anticipate the event whatsoever and was not staffed for it. Deputy Chief Fred Mickel publicly spoke about this, and how lucky SLOPD was because the event happened near shift change so they could hold over officers while new officers came on duty. The SLOPD Police Chief Rick Scott ignored the warnings sent to him in July 2022 about the perfect storm scenario in 2023, where St. Fratty’s Day and St. Patrick’s Day were back-to-back on Friday and Saturday in 2023. This correspondence was also sent to the City Manager and the City Council, and residents later spoke to the Council, warning that those two dates together, on a weekend, were going to result in huge crowds and adversely affect the neighborhood. No one listened and the City was unprepared for that chaos and illegal activity that year, which allowed the momentum to grown and carry forward in 2024. The 2023 event was out of control and all-over social media, and there was no intervention from SLOPD. It was painful to watch the non-stop climbing on utility poles, partying on rooftops, etc. and nothing was done to stop it. The videos publicizing the lack of enforcement encouraged the event to continue and increase in size in 2024. Again, SLOPD was warned in 2024 and, again, was not adequately staffed as the event crowd doubled for the third year in a row. People were trapped in their homes. Some residents in older homes thought the roof was going to collapse on them because it was overtaken by trespassers. Video footage of the crowd shows it was a realistic possibility. Panicked residents called 9-1-1 and were hung up on. It was a disaster. Meanwhile, SLOPD Police Chief Rick Scott made false representations about what really happened during these St. Fratty’s Day events each year at various meetings, including Council, SCLC, and to the local media. Recordings of his statements showed his inconsistent and untrue statements, as his 4 narrative changed depending on who he was talking to. He was likely caught off guard during his interview with the Grand Jury and had to explain his inconsistent statements. Following his testimony, the Grand Jury requested the testimony of two other SLOPD officers, and the Police Chief likely felt uncomfortable with that proposition because he did not have control over what they might say. Interviews are private, confidential, and don’t allow legal representation. Why else would the requested testimony of two SLOPD officers be blocked by SLOPD leadership? If you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing. According to the Grand Jury, the City blocked the requested testimony of two SLOPD police officers. A Grand Jury interview is 60-90 minutes. Those officers had that time to spare over the course of the long investigation. There is simply no excuse for blocking the requested testimony. It is not transparent and erodes the public’s trust at a time when it is critical for communities to trust law enforcement. The City seems to suggest that the Grand Jury should have subpoenaed the officers if they really wanted the officers’ testimony. The Grand Jury relies on the City’s voluntary cooperation and should not have to issue subpoenas to force SLOPD officers to testify. Blocking the voluntary testimony of two officers is not “cooperation”. The City’s assertion that it provided “unimpeded access” and “transparency in good faith” is a misrepresentation. Everyone sees through the gaslighting, and it makes the City look dishonest at a time when politicians are not honest or transparent, and people feel uneasy and unsafe. It is also a fabrication for the City to claim that St. Fratty’s Day “involves hundreds of people walking up and down neighborhood sidewalks – behavior that is generally constitutionally protected.” In 2022, 2023, and 2024, the event involved thousands of people illegally overtaking the City streets, and each year the City barricaded the streets to prevent vehicle traffic. In fact, in 2023 and 2024, the barricades were pre-scheduled with the City utility department, and trucks pulled up before dawn to install unmanned barricades that closed off streets to cars before people showed up. This enabled thousands of people to use the City’s streets as promenades to and from the enormous street parties that overflowed and trespassed into the yards and roofs of people who live in the neighborhood. This could have been prevented if SLOPD had an adequate plan, based on the exponential growth of the event from 2,000 people in 2022 to 3,000 4,000 people in 2023. Indeed, the event nearly doubled in size again in 2024, which was predicted by residents who had witnessed the event in 2022 and 2023. Those residents warned the City and asked for more support, and they were ignored. Finally, St. Fratty’s Day which is a stand-alone event and is distinctly different from St. Patrick’s Day. Referring to St. Fratty’s Day as St. Patrick’s will cause confusion. I realize Cal Poly has expressed displeasure with the term. However, 22,000+ students at Cal Poly will use the term this year, including Cal Poly fraternity and sorority members. “St. Fratty’s Day” at Cal Poly is all over social media if you care to look, and it is not called St. Patrick’s Day. In 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 banners hung on fraternity houses that said “St. Fratty’s Day”. Even when Cal Poly banned Greek Life from having parties in 2025, Delta Chi and Sigma Nu had banners made that said “St. Frattys” for parties that morning. Sigma Nu cancelled their party at the last minute, but Delta Chi had a “St. Fratty’s” banner hanging in their courtyard while they hosted a party before the 2025 on-campus concert. People at the fraternity party posted videos of the party on Snapchat, and the party was ultimately shut down by SLOPD. TikTok videos from Greek life members and others referenced “St. Fratty’s Day”, not “St. Patrick’s Day”. Most Cal Poly students also referred to the event at St. Fratty’s Day on YikYak. 5 So while some people may publicly complain about the term St. Fratty’s Day, the fraternities and sororities are using the term themselves to describe the Saturday morning event that occurs the week before winter finals at Cal Poly. It originated with Greek Life at 348 Hathway. Tens of thousands of other college students and other people are also using the term. Conflating St. Fratty’s Day with St. Patrick’s Day only causes confusion because they are not the same event and happen on completely different dates. More complete information and documentation about the history of St. Fratty’s Day in San Luis Obispo and the events since 2022, is at StFrattys.com. Halloweekend Halloweekend is the three-night neighborhood takeover of thousands of people who walk down sidewalks and the middle of the streets in Alta Vista and Monterey Heights to attend mostly fraternity parties at fraternity houses. Pedestrians blocked the streets in the neighborhood and street parties began to form in 2023. Most of the fraternities are operating illegally in R1 and R2 neighborhoods or without Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) in R4 zones. And the maximum occupancy of a CUP for a fraternity operating legally would not allow for a large party, but the fraternities ignore the max occupancy limitations, in violation of their CUPs. There was a surge in the volume of people in the neighborhoods for Halloweekend in 2022, just like St. Fratty’s Day in 2022. And the number of people doubled for Halloweekend in 2023. SLOPD did not adequately handle the event either year, but 2023 was especially bad. SNAP students were dispatched to most parties, which is shown in SLOPD’s dispatch log, indicated by a response from “P1” instead of a four number SLOPD unit. One enormous party at an illegal fraternity house for Theta Chi, near our home, was cleared by a senior SLOPD officer as “unable to locate” even though there was video evidence of people spilling into the street at the time the officer cleared the call as unable to locate. It was obvious that the officer did not go to the property because the overflowing fraternity party could be heard and seen for blocks, including from our home. Minutes after the SLOPD officer cleared the call, and after another call was made to SLOPD, the party was cited by a different SLOPD officer with 200 people listed on the citation. Over a dozen loud fraternity parties were not cited by SLOPD on Halloweekend 2023, even though there was video documentation showing the noisy parties. When SLOPD Police Chief Rick Scott was questioned about why this happened with the specific addresses listed, his response was that SLOPD officers followed policy. That was his answer, without any explanation about why so many noisy parties, were cleared as negative violations by SLOPD or SNAP, despite video documentation of the parties. 6 After enduring two nights of absolute hell, I emailed all Councilmembers on Saturday morning and invited you over to see for yourselves on Saturday night. No one took me up on my offer and again, Saturday night was a complete nightmare that could not be escaped if you lived in the neighborhood. Although the City subsequently adopted a Safety Enhancement Zone in 2024 for weekends leading up to Halloween, in 2024 the Halloweekend event took place over TWO weekends, before and after Halloween. Therefore, the impact was split between two separate events. This year, Halloween is on a Friday, which is the perfect storm for Halloweekend to be a three-night hellscape for the neighborhood on Thursday 10/30/2025, Friday 10/31/2025 and Saturday 11/1/2025. Yo u should take the time to visit the neighborhood and see what the residents must live through for three nights every year. Hopefully, SLOPD has planned for extra staff, including bicycle officers and foot patrol, and will not send SNAP students to the enormous parties at documented fraternity houses in the neighborhoods. Proactive enforcement is the only way to prevent the event from being so disruptive and gaining momentum in future years. In 2023, St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s Day were back-to-back on a Friday and Saturday, and that was a turning point that allowed the momentum of the event to double in size and become more out of control in 2024. This year, 2025, the same could happen with Halloweekend if SLOPD is not proactive in its enforcement, shutting down parties and people gathering in the streets, before the disturbances adversely affect those living in the neighborhoods. Finding 2. The city has not effectively engaged in working together with community stakeholders to find solutions for ongoing off-campus issues that negatively impact neighborhoods such as code enforcement, noise issues, trespassing, property damage, and unruly events. City Response: (F2) The City disagrees with this finding. The City is (1) not facing reality or (2) being deceptive. As a stakeholder directly affected by the off- campus issues that negatively affect our neighborhood, and a representative of many of my neighbors who are too afraid to speak up because fraternity members have actually harmed neighbors’ pets and property when they reported problems to the fraternity’s landlord, I can unequivocally say that the Grand Jury is 100% correct in its Finding that the city has not EFFECTIVELY engaged in working together with community stakeholders regarding the ongoing issues listed. Citing city policy from a decade ago does not change the current facts of the matter, which was the subject of the Grand Jury investigation. I realize that the Grand Jury report has now become political, which is extremely unfortunate. If the Grand Jury report was positive for the City, I’m sure that information would be announced and promoted by the City and there would be no denials about the good news. The Grand Jury spent many months investigating, gathering evidence mostly provided by the City itself, including interviews with City Staff. As mentioned, the Grand Jury requested interviews with two police officers and their appearance at the requested interview was blocked by SLOPD/City leadership. The testimony of those officers would have clarified some matters outlined in one of the Grand Jury complaints. The jurors visited the neighborhood and witnessed the conditions firsthand. None of the City staff live in the neighborhoods, and when I have invited you Councilmembers to visit multiple times, you have not accepted my invitation. 7 During the Grand Jury’s investigation over the past year, no one had any idea what the report would say until the report was released. Many residents are sickened to witness the City’s response and be gaslighted by City administration. Rather than using this opportunity for growth and to turn the tide on a horrible problem, the City is stubbornly digging in its heels and has disagreed with every single Finding of the Grand Jury. The City cites policies and data from 15 years ago, when dozens of illegal fraternity operations did not exist in the neighborhoods. Our family lived in Alta Vista 15 years ago, and there were only a couple of illegal fraternities down on Hathway Avenue. Now, there are over 50 full-fledged fraternities that hold fraternity-related events in Alta Vista and Monterey Heights. Our home is literally surrounded by illegal fraternity houses that hold fraternity-related events. The noise complaint data from 15 years ago has nothing to do with the current problem that was investigated by the Grand Jury. Things have become dire for the year-round and other residents in Alta Vista and Monterey Heights due to the illegal fraternity operations. Noise complaints to SLOPD over the past 10 years have remained consistent and for the past five years, there have been about 1400 noise complaints per year. The large, disruptive parties with 50-200 people are mostly at fraternity houses. Many year-round residents have moved out of the neighborhoods in the last 15 years because the noise has become impossible to live with. We also no longer have a Neighborhood Outreach Manager, as we did 15 years ago, where neighborhood meetings with her and the SLOPD Neighborhood Officers were common. Current City policy and the way things are handled, including the cooperation with neighborhood groups and RQN, has also changed significantly for the worse, especially since 2021 when I first began communicating with the City about the noise problems at fraternity houses. Also, SLOPD’s data isn’t correct. There have been multiple times when my calls do not show up on the SLOPD log. After I realized that my calls were missing from SLOPD logs, and being told that I must be mistaken, I began taking screenshots of my calls to SLOPD. I also documented the date and time with video of the fraternity party. There are multiple times when my documented calls to SLOPD for huge, loud fraternity parties near our home were not shown on the SLOPD dispatch log. Regardless of the data around noise complaints, the larger concern is that documented fraternities illegally operating in the neighborhoods are still operating, and have increased since 2021, hosting large fraternity-related events and creating an environment that makes it impossible to rest or sleep in those neighborhoods every weekend of the academic year, beginning on Thursday each week. Those are the facts. Watch the videos. Look at the addresses listed on Cal Poly’s AB 524 report published 10/1/2023 which I provided to the City numerous times. The fraternities are still operating at those addresses. Many of the illegal fraternity houses have egregious histories of noise complaints and citations, yet there are no consequences except for citation fines, which don’t seem to matter to the fraternities as the situation has become worse. Fraternities have financial resources, and their Nationals help pay those fines. (See the “Deferred Recruitment Compromise” reached after Carson Starkey’s hazing death and President Armstrong deferred freshmen from joining a fraternity for three months, until winter quarter. Lobbyists from the North American Interfraternity Conference flew to San Luis Obispo to convince Cal Poly to revert back to allowing freshmen to rush in the fall. The bottom line was that it was about money. Fraternities have money and citation fines don’t impact them much. More information is here: https://howtoruinaneighborhood.com/illegal-fraternity-houses/) Documented fraternity houses are allowed to clear their citation history through SLOPD’s Early Removal Program and start over with a warning and $0 DAC - or two - before they are again cited for noise with progressively increasing fines. That is not acceptable. The City should have a program that flags these egregious offenders and, most importantly, shuts down the illegal fraternity operations. 8 The City, including SLOPD and Community Development, and even you, have been provided with mountains of documentation of the problems, and yet the City has failed to stop the operation of the documented illegal fraternity houses. They are all still operating! The neighborhoods are, as the Grand Jury found, nearly unlivable for most people. That is the truth. The City has not effectively worked with the residents to solve this ongoing problem. SLOPD has not cooperated in working with the residents. I sent you video footage from our security surveillance that showed SLOPD Officer John Stevens criticizing the year-round residents for being oversensitive about noise, as he told the noisemaker (who got a citation because he was, indeed, violating the noise ordinance and woke us up) that a “neighbor who is a frequent reporter” called about the noise. Officer Stevens specifically stated that SLOPD’s policy is that they don’t look for noise violations. Officer Stevens also falsely told the noisemaker that RQN goes out looking for noise violations to call into SLOPD. Officer Stevens has never met me or anyone in my family. RQN is also not familiar with him. But his narrative came from somewhere. Where did he get these negative impressions about the caller or about RQN? How did he know who made the noise complaint and/or classify them as a “frequent reporter”? And why would he tell that to the offender? SLOPD officers criticizing residents who call in noise complaints for legitimate noise violations or making false statements about RQN is not consistent with the City’s claims that it is working with community members and/or finding solutions for issues that negatively impact neighborhood, such as noise issues. SLOPD Police Chief Rick Scott has changed his narrative about various issues, including noise and St. Fratty’s Day, depending upon who he is speaking with. He was not honest during his briefings to Council after St. Fratty’s Day in previous years. He also lied, denying he made statements after an SCLC meeting that were witnessed by multiple people, when he claimed someone would have to die or have catastrophic damage to their property (e.g. roof collapse) before St. Fratty’s Day would be shut down. During the same conversation, he told the homeowner that it was their responsibility to protect their own property from trespassers and damage, and the City had immunity. Police Chief Rick Scott also threatened the Neighborhood Representative on the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC), Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, because she brought up SLOPD’s lack of enforcement of noisy parties at illegal fraternity houses in the neighborhood during an SCLC meeting. He was apparently offended and perceived Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre’s statements about the lack of enforcement and calls not showing up on the SLOPD log as personal criticism in front of the SCLC, whose membership includes Cal Poly leadership and the City Manager. SLOPD Public Affairs Manager Christine Wallace followed Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre out of the SCLC meeting and told her to never bring up the lack of enforcement by SLOPD at the SCLC meetings again. The next day, Police Chief Rick Scott sent a “complaint” to the chair of RQN, who has nothing to do with Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre’s representation as the Geographical Neighborhood Representative. He inferred that SLOPD wouldn’t be as cooperative with RQN if the narrative about the lack of enforcement did not stop. In his email, he tells the chair of RQN that the matter was addressed with Ms. Vujovich- LaBarre after the SCLC meeting, but that the RQN Representative, Brett Cross, left early so SLOPD was not able to tell him to stop criticizing SLOPD. SLOPD Police Chief Rick Scott incorrectly stated that Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre was “ill informed” and that she was “NOT correct” when she said that SLOPD did not cite a party at 348 Hathway. In fact, her account of what happened was 100% correct. On Friday, 2/9/2024, there was a large, loud party at 348 Hathway which was called into SLOPD dispatch. Video evidence showed that the illegal fraternity operation at 348 Hathway (Phi Sigma Kappa) was hosting a very loud party with the Delta Gamma sorority, and there were banners for the sorority hung at the party. That call was missing from the SLOPD log and SLOPD did not respond to the party. 9 The following day, Saturday 2/10/2024, there was another fraternity party at 348 Hathway and the fraternity members did not answer the door to SLOPD, so they were issued a $1000 fine. In his email, SLOPD Police Chief Rick Scott was referring to the call on Saturday, 2/10/2024, saying that SLOPD spent a great deal of time resolving the issue. But Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre was referring to the call on Friday, 2/9/2024, when SLOPD never responded to the noisy fraternity party at 348 Hathway when Phi Sigma Kappa was hosting the Delta Gamma sorority. It was later discovered that SLOPD Officer Sandoval saw a party near 348 Hathway, at 274 Hathway, and cancelled the call made for 348 Hathway without responding because she assumed the call was meant for 274 Hathway. However, she did not cite the party she witnessed at 274 Hathway. She never went to 348 Hathway and the party continued for some time after she left the neighborhood. In any event, Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre’s assertions were correct but Police Chief Rick Scott never admitted the mistake or apologized for attacking her in such an unprofessional manner. People should be able to bring up legitimate problems with enforcement, and one of the purposes of SCLC is to resolve issues between the college-student community and the neighborhoods. Now, Police Chief Scott’s bias against Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre and the RQN Representative, Brett Cross, at the SCLC meetings is obvious. Here is SLOPD Police Chief Rick Scott’s email: 10 Indeed, Police Chief Rick Scott has stopped cooperating with RQN and other residents since this incident. He has specifically refused meetings that were requested. The City claims that City Leadership Team members regularly attend RQN meetings to provide updates and gather feedback. I would like the City to define “regularly”. I have attended RQN meetings for years, and there were very few meetings with the City Leadership Team members. The City claims it has a productive and cooperative relationship with RQN, which is not true. Don’t take it from me. Ask the Board Members of RQN for yourself. And believe the Grand Jury report. The City cites SCLC as a resource, but I urge you to speak with the two Neighborhood Representatives on SCLC (Mila Vujovich-LaBarre and Brett Cross) about how SCLC is addressing neighborhood problems. Last year both Ms. Vujuvich-LaBarre and Mr. Cross asked that someone from the neighborhood be included on the St. Fratty’s Day task force, and that never happened. The resident/neighborhood representatives on SCLC are mostly ignored. The new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) proposes up to five more community members be added to SCLC who are not necessarily impacted by neighborhood issues and the college-student community. Recruitment of new representatives was presented to Chamber of Commerce members at Good Morning SLO. The “mission” of SCLC was eliminated, and the “purpose” of SCLC has morphed with the new MOU. For clarity, the MOU for the SCLC was rewritten by SLOPD Police Chief Rick Scott and Cal Poly administrator Michelle Crawford over a year ago. It feels and appears that SCLC has become a political PR committee that does not welcome conversations about problems in the neighborhoods, including the illegal fraternity operations and SLOPD’s lack of enforcement of the noise ordinance. SCLC has become more about information sharing and promoting Cal Poly or the City than ever before and less about resolving issues brought forward by the neighborhood representative/RQN. The problem issues are not discussed, and the neighborhood and RQN representatives are criticized or ignored. Cuesta College was not included in the Google document when the MOU was rewritten by Rick Scott and Michelle Crawford. Also, the County had not been involved in SCLC for years, until Steve emailed the Supervisor last Spring and requested that she come to the meetings. Her assistant attended initially, and then the Supervisor attended once. The SCLC is subject to the Brown Act, but meetings are not recorded, and the Minutes are often skewed, so there is no permanent record of what is actually said during the meetings. The City cites SCLC as helping form policy within the City, and for this reason, those meetings should be recorded for the public to access for transparency. The City also claims it meets with Cal Poly leadership and gave presentations to Greek Life in January and March 2025. During those presentations, Code Enforcement told Greek Life, including Cal Poly staff that oversees Greek Life, that it is illegal for fraternities to hold fraternity events in the residential neighborhoods. Just a few days after the presentation, the fraternities held events – illegally - in the residential neighborhoods. They do not care about the City’s laws. They do not care about the impact on the residents who live in the neighborhoods. You should believe what they do, not what they say. Additionally, those events in the residential neighborhoods were registered with Cal Poly Greek Life beforehand, so Cal Poly staff members Jason Mockford and Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola knew that the fraternities were holding illegal events in the City when the presentations were made. Mr. Mockford continued to defend the fraternities during SCLC meetings and objected to the term “illegal fraternities” while, at the same time, enabling those illegal fraternity operations to wreak havoc on the City’s neighborhoods and the residents who live here. When is enough, enough? 11 During the entire 2024-2025 academic year of SCLC meetings, which were recorded, not a single representative from the City, including the mayor and councilmembers, backed up Ms. Vujovich- LaBarre (Geographical Neighborhood Representative) or Brett Cross (RQN Representative). It was especially troubling with Mr. Vujovich-LaBarre was unfairly criticized by the Cal Poly Interfraternity Council president and no one came to her defense. The City says that the code enforcement process is complicated by the annual turnover of residents at properties, and the nature of complaints “which may range from small gatherings, such as a few people having dinner or playing basketball, to large, disruptive parties.” Let’s focus on the matter at hand that was investigated by the Grand Jury: ongoing large, noisy parties at illegal fraternity operations of Cal Poly’s 19 fraternities – including Main Chapter Houses - in dozens of documented illegal fraternity houses. Those documented addresses have not changed since they were published by Cal Poly’s AB 524 report for the 2022-2023 academic year, except more illegal fraternity houses have been added to the neighborhood. Every Main Chapter House for each fraternity is at the same address today, in the Fall of 2025, as they were during the 2022-2023 academic year, and they are continuing to operate illegally. It is not complicated. The City has not enforced its laws and has allowed the illegal fraternity operations to continue, unabated, just as the Grand Jury report stated. The basketball games cited in the City’s response likely refers to Delta Chi appealing a noise citation for what they claim was a basketball game late at night, and the citation was dismissed by the SLO hearing officer. Regarding that matter, the SLOPD Deputy Chief Brian Amoroso told the Planning Commission that the SLO hearing officer was wrongly dismissing noise citations that were legitimate noise violations because SLOPD’s body cameras minimize outside noise and focus on the one-to-one conversation between the officer and the person they are talking to. For example, he said an extremely loud gunshot will sound muffled on SLOPD’s body cam video. Noise from parties is not recorded accurately on SLOPD’s body cam video. According to Deputy Chief Amoroso, the SLO hearing officer has been “educated” by SLOPD since the hearing officer dismissed Delta Chi’s noise citation. I don’t know how many legitimate noise citations for noisy parties were dismissed by the hearing officer based on the issue with SLOPD’s body cam videos. It’s still not clear whether SLOPD has a new system that records the actual noise, if they are using decibel meters to accurately determine noise levels, or what guideline is used by the hearing officer when someone appeals a noise citation. I want to emphasize that my family and I enjoy our college student neighbors, watch out for them, and help them whenever possible. We opened our home to them, offered our kitchen when they did not have access to one, and allowed them to stay on our property when they didn’t have a roof over their head. We also are not opposed to standard parties and are tolerant of noise to an extent. However, our lives have been ruined by the enormous out-of-control fraternity parties at the dozens of illegal fraternity houses in the neighborhood and their guests who loudly come and go and keep us awake throughout each weekend when Cal Poly is in session. We also witness things that no one should have to see because the Greek party culture is so toxic. Recently, a group of young women on their way to a fraternity party stopped in front of our house and forced one of the females in their group, a highly intoxicated female named Paige, onto her knees while another one of the females put her fingers down Paige’s throat to force her to vomit in our yard, calling it “pulling trig”. Paige said “no” multiple times and was groaning. The other girls ganged up and intimidated Paige while one said, “Choke her.” Paige could barely stand up and they said they were getting her ready to go hook up with a guy at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity that is operating illegally near our home. They told Paige she needed to look pretty to meet up with the guy while she was literally unable to walk on her own. The entire incident is on video from our surveillance cameras. During the same weekend, multiple people trespassed onto our property to use our front yard as a toilet. 12 These are not isolated incidents and have no place in residential neighborhoods! The neighborhood has been ruined by illegal fraternity operations and the City has not made any progress in quelling the problem. It is infuriating!! Finding 3: The city has failed to effectively enforce municipal codes that prohibit fraternity and sorority activity in R-1/R-2 zones in part due to the difficulty in identifying houses that are hosting fraternity-type events, such as rush events and repeated parties. This inaction has resulted in an increase in illegal fraternities holding events in residential neighborhoods making these areas almost unlivable for most residents. City Response: (F2) The City disagrees with this finding. Grand Jury Recommendation 3: The SLO City Manager should develop and implement an ongoing formal process to identify illegal fraternities to bring them into compliance. The City claims this recommendation has been implemented but evidence shows that it isn’t true. Every single Main Chapter House that was identified as illegally operating during the academic year 2022-2023 is still operating today in Fall 2025. Not a single illegal fraternity operation has been brought into compliance by the City. In fact, more illegal fraternity operations have been added to the neighborhoods since Cal Poly’s first AB 524 Report in 2023. The people who live in the neighborhoods continue to suffer the consequences of insanely disruptive fraternity parties, screaming crowds passing by our homes throughout the night to and from those fraternity parties, constant rideshare traffic, slamming doors, etc. It is like living near multiple nightclubs in a residential neighborhood and is not an environment which is “livable” for most people. That’s the reason there has been a mass exodus of year-round residents from the neighborhood. • Are you able to recognize that? • Can you admit the neighborhood is no longer an acceptable living environment? • Do you think it’s okay for residents to have to endure constant noisy fraternity parties and the peripheral problems with roving, intoxicated crowds coming and going from those parties? • Have you considered what it must feel like to try to get rest or live in such an environment? • What are you willing to do right now to change it? If your answer is that you will continue to do what you’ve been doing for the past two years, which has not changed anything, then you should not be sitting on the City Council because that does not represent the best interest of your constituents. The Grand Jury visited the neighborhood to see the situation for themselves. Have you gone to the neighborhood during weekends when Cal Poly is in session? It has become increasingly worse since I first noticed an increase in noise in Fall of 2021 and contacted the City after communicating with other year-round residents in the neighborhood who also shared my experience. The noisy parties are mostly attributed to illegal fraternity operations. To be clear, there is no problem with the homes where fraternity members live that do not host fraternity-related events. But for those that do, the City can legally compel Cal Poly to disclose those addresses to the City per the CPRA. Cal Poly has refused to provide the addresses, despite the City’s request, and the City has refused to hold Cal Poly accountable to the detriment of the City’s residents. Cal Poly has the legal obligation to provide the addresses where fraternity events are held within the City’s neighborhoods. The City Attorney, Christine Dietrick, agrees that Cal Poly has that legal 13 obligation. There is no exemption available to Cal Poly under the CPRA that allows Cal Poly to withhold the addresses where fraternity-related events are held. An address does not contain any personally identifiable information that would specifically identify a particular person and providing an address does not violate privacy laws. There is substantial case law on this matter. Please remember that Cal Poly is intentionally and actively hiding these addresses from the City and it is harming the City’s neighborhoods! The failure of the City to use the tools that are available to protect the residents of the City is wrong. The problem is long-standing, and it seems that you are siding with Cal Poly against the residents when you, as our elected representatives, have failed to compel action to protect us, especially considering the mountain of evidence, videos, etc. that have been provided to you that prove the addresses and the continued disruptions at illegal fraternity operations. Further, it seems the Code Enforcement is acting against the best interests of its residents. Every fraternity advertises their fraternity events on social media with the addresses of the events and photos of the events at their properties. This information has repeatedly been submitted to Code Enforcement, and the complaints have repeatedly been dismissed as unfounded. The required standard of proof is low and merely needs to show it is more likely than not a fraternity event. Why does the City dismiss complaints where the fraternity has posted photos of the event at the documented fraternity address, backed up with other videos and photos that also show the event happened? The Grand Jury found these illegal fraternity operations to be unacceptable, yet you have not done anything to stop them, and the problem has continued for years. I have sent noise reports to you with the SLOPD logs showing the incredible resources expended to respond to these huge parties at illegal fraternity houses, videos of the parties, and an enormous amount of documentation, but the problem has only grown worse since 2021. I have asked for your assistance, and you have not helped. Some of you have never responded to a single email I’ve sent. Those who did said that you’re having conversations with Cal Poly, while Cal Poly continues to enable illegal fraternity operations and disruptive events to invade our neighborhoods. These events are registered with Cal Poly beforehand, according to Greek Life Event Registration Policy. Cal Poly knows the addresses of these events, and they know it is illegal for the fraternities to hold these events, but they are sanctioning these illegal events anyway. Meanwhile, you are “working” with them by having conversations while nothing changes. It is insane. Other people, including the Grand Jury, see how crazy this is. Please be more proactive in protecting the neighborhoods from this illegal activity. The problem is extreme and has negatively altered the lives of residents in the neighborhoods. The City claims it has investigated “over 100 complaints and opened 42 enforcement cases related to unpermitted fraternity activity or conditional use permit violations.” To clarify, each individual address that was listed on Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report is a separate “complaint”. The city sent out over 60 in the Spring of 2024. These 100+ complaints are not complaints made by separate people. Residents generally complain to SLOPD about the noise from fraternity parties. No one was aware that Community Development and Code Enforcement oversee fraternity operations, or that fraternities are illegal in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. SLOPD officers don’t even know that they are illegal in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, and do not know which properties in R-4 neighborhoods have permits and which don’t! There has not been effective communication between SLOPD and Code Enforcement related to the fraternity issue, including legal and illegal fraternities. For example, Code Enforcement never asked SLOPD for records for fraternities with CUPs to track their citation history or number of people at parties that were cited, in accordance with their CUPs. Code Enforcement began reviewing the records after they became aware of the Grand Jury investigation at the end of 2024. I am not sure if Code Enforcement will continue to proactively get those records from SLOPD since it was never done prior to the investigation. 14 After Code Enforcement sent letters to property owners about their properties operating illegally as fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods or without CUPs in Spring 2024, there was no follow up. The fraternities are still illegally operating at those addresses! Events at those addresses are still advertised on the fraternities’ social media pages, photos of events at the properties are posted on social media, and events at those addresses continue to disrupt the peace of the neighborhoods every weekend that Cal Poly is in session. As mentioned, I have reported several events, including screenshots of events from the fraternities’ Instagram pages and photos of the events, and my complaints are routinely dismissed by Code Enforcement as unfounded. Code Enforcement does not work evenings and weekends, when these events are happening, therefore they are not citing them. And when a complaint is made, it is dismissed unless City staff personally witness the event or the fraternity admits that it happened. Under the present circumstances, the fraternities will never be shut down by the City. The neighborhood residents will continue to suffer. The City Claims it Fines Illegal Fraternity Properties The City’s response says “When events occur at these houses that violation the Municipal Code, the code enforcement team follows the City standards and practices to notify the occupants and property owners of violations and assess fines for non-compliance, as directed by City regulations. Fines and enforcement actions escalate if repeat events occur that are found to violate the Municipal Code.” Below is a list of documented fraternity houses, listed in Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report and on Cal Poly fraternities’ social media pages. Of 19 fraternities, there are four CUPs noted in bold font, including Delta Chi. Delta Chi’s CUP was revoked by the Planning Commission but has appealed to the City Council to be heard next month. The Main Chapter Houses for each fraternity are the first address shown after each fraternity name, underlined, and all of them are still operating today. Please ask the City staff to provide documentation showing the actual fines assessed for non-compliance and repeat violations of illegal fraternity operations. • How many of the 50+ properties that continue to operate illegally as fraternities have actually been fined by Code Enforcement for illegal fraternity operations? • How much has the City collected in fines for illegal fraternity operations? • Why are these illegal fraternities continuing to operate if they have been documented as illegal? As mentioned, none of the documented Main Chapter Houses have stopped operating, and 95% of the documented satellite fraternity houses continue to operate. A couple have been sold since 2021 and are no longer fraternities, so they are no longer on the list. If the properties are being fined, why haven’t the property owners stopped the fraternity operations? I don’t believe that the City is holding these property owners accountable because the fraternities have never stopped holding fraternity events at those addresses, and they are openly advertised on social media. Here is one example: Jerry Lenthall, a former SLOPD officer, owns Zeta Beta Tau’s (ZBT) Main Chapter Houses at 654 & 658 Graves Avenue and a ZBT satellite house at 1928 Garfield. The addresses are zoned R-4 so Mr. Lenthall could apply for a CUP. In Spring 2024, Code Enforcement sent Notice to Mr. Lenthall for illegal fraternity operations at these addresses. He responded that he did not want the fraternity to operate at those locations and would not apply for a CUP. However, the fraternity has continued to operate and hold fraternity-related events at each of these addresses. Some documentation includes posts on ZBT’s social media advertising events at the addresses, photos of the events on ZBT’s Instagram page that clearly show the events happening at those properties, etc. ZBT never stopped operating at these addresses but there are no consequences. 15 This same scenario is true over and over again for over 50 other properties within the City but most are in R-1, single family neighborhoods are not legally allowed to get a CUP or operate there. How many have been fined? If the City is truly assessing fines, they aren’t working because the properties are still holding fraternity-related events. Also, why do SNAP students continue to be dispatched by SLOPD to documented fraternity addresses? If the City has identified the illegal fraternity operations, have they shared that list of addresses with SLOPD? Over a year ago, the Planning Commissioners suggested that Community Development and SLOPD need to communicate better and share information with one another. Up until the present time, SLOPD continues to dispatch SNAP students to many of these addresses, including Main Chapter Houses, therefore is not using Code Enforcement’s list of documented illegal fraternities to instruct their calls for noise complaints and ensure that SNAP is not sent to documented fraternity addresses. SLOPD also clears the citation history of documented illegal fraternities through the “Early Removal Program” which allows the fraternity members and the property owner to escape accountability and financial consequences for their continuing, disruptive and illegal fraternity events. These property owners received letters from Code Enforcement, notifying them of the illegal fraternity operations at their properties. But they ignored the City’s warnings, continued operating illegal fraternities, and were subsequently allowed to clear their citation history through Christine Wallace at SLOPD. This is the crux of the matter. The City claims it has developed a formal process to identify the illegal operations and has brought them into compliance, but that is false. None of the illegal fraternity houses have been brought into compliance. Each of the documented illegal fraternity operations continue to operate, hosting fraternity-related events and disrupting the neighborhood on a continual basis, and residents who live in these neighborhoods do not have the peaceful enjoyment of their property or ability to rest on weekends when Cal Poly is in session. Most of the addresses listed below have a history of noise complaints to SLOPD because they are fraternity houses in residential neighborhoods where people need to rest and sleep. Fraternity Address Zone/Notes re: CUP violations last academic year 1. Alpha Gamma Rho 132 California Blvd R-4, NO CUP 2. Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd 2 Noise Citations, 150 ppl, 100 ppl (CUP allows 25) 331 Hathway Ave R-2 Zone 3. Alpha Sigma Phi 1218/1220 Bond St R-2 Zone 299 Albert Dr R-1 Zone 4. Beta Theta Pi 1327 E. Foothill Blvd R-4, NO CUP 1220 Fredericks St R-2 Zone 377 Albert Dr R-1 Zone 5. Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista CUP Revoked & Revocation Appealed to Council 6. Delta Sigma Phi 1684/1688 Mill St R-2 Zone Note: Delta Sigma Phi has moved to 244 California Blvd this academic year. The property was formerly Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority and I am not sure the conditions of the CUP. 16 7. Delta Upsilon 720 E. Foothill Blvd CUP Revoked 1700 Fredericks St R-1 Zone 281 Albert Dr R-1 Zone 388 Chaplin Ln R-1 Zone 1861 Slack St R-1 Zone 1868 Loomis R-1 Zone 8. Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway Ave R-1 Zone 322 Hathway Ave R-2 Zone 108 Crandall Wy R-4, NO CUP 1900 McCollum R-1 293 Albert Dr R-1 1861 Hope St R-1 9. Lambda Chi Alpha 1264 E. Foothill 5 Noise Citations, 1 w/200 ppl (CUP allows 48 ppl) 1241 Monte Vista Pl Included in CUP 1243 Monte Vista Pl Included in CUP 1245 Monte Vista Pl Included in CUP 1251 Monte Vista Pl Included in CUP 171 Orange Dr R-1 Zone 12 Hathway Ave R-1 Zone 253 Albert Dr R-1 Zone 278 Albert Dr R-1 Zone 285 Chaplin Ln R-1 Zone 178 Chaplin Ln R-1 Zone 220 Kentucky St R-1 Zone 10. Phi Delta Theta 260 Chaplin Ln R-1 Zone 251 Highland R-1 Zone 568 Ellen Wy R-2 Zone 11. Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI)1229 Fredericks St R-2 Zone 12. Phi Kappa Psi 1335 E. Foothill Blvd 2 Noise Citations (CUP allows 15 ppl) 237 Albert Dr R-1 Zone 2061 Hope St R-1 Zone 1271 Stafford R-2 Zone 1273 Stafford R-2 Zone 1275 Stafford R-2 Zone 346 Grand Ave R-1 Zone 1740 Fredericks R-1 Zone 1276 Bond R-1 Zone 13. Phi Sigma Kappa 348/350 Hathway Ave R-2 Zone 1908 Loomis R-1 Zone 14. Pi Kappa Phi 740 W. Foothill Blvd County 66 Rafael Way R-1 Zone 15. Sigma Nu 1304 E. Foothill Blvd CUP Revoked 1292 Foothill Blvd R-4, NO CUP 1621 McCollum R-1 Zone 17 290 Chaplin Ln R-1 Zone 1841 Slack St R-1 Zone 1632 Fredericks St R-1 Zone 1541 Slack St R-1 Zone 385 Chaplin Ln R-1 Zone 16. Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays Street R-1 Zone 17. Sigma Pi 1525 Slack Street R-1 Zone 124 Stenner St R-4 Zone, NO CUP 1555 Slack Street R-1 Zone 18. Theta Chi 248/250 Grand Ave R-1 Zone 1844 McCollum R-1 (Shares backyard with 248/250 Grand) 496 Kentucky R-2 Zone 1350 Stafford St R-2 Zone 1820 Hope St R-1 Zone 1238 Foothill Blvd R-4, NO CUP 1441 Slack St R-1 Zone 1661 McCollum R-1 Zone 19. Zeta Beta Tau 654 & 658 Graves Ave R-4 Zone, NO CUP 1928 Garfield R-4, same owner as Graves (Jerry Lenthall) 1626 Fredericks St R-1 Zone 244 Albert Dr R-1 Zone 2044 Loomis R-1 Zone 212 Albert Dr R-1 Zone 2044 McCollum R-1 Zone 205 Albert Dr R-1 Zone The City claims it is not going to formally address this issue for a year from now. Why is the City waiting for another academic year before addressing this issue with the public? The matter is urgent and is affecting the health, safety and welfare of the City’s residents. Imagine if the effort and urgency that the City has put into responding to the Grand Jury report was, instead, used to bring illegal fraternity operations into compliance. We would not be in this dire situation if those resources were used to solve the issue. Cal Poly has taken the position that it is up to the City to enforce its laws. The illegal fraternity operations are happening within the city limits, not on Cal Poly’s campus, therefore Cal Poly does not believe it is its problem. Cal Poly staff who oversee fraternities told me that I should report the illegal operations to Code Enforcement or SLOPD. Here is an email from Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola, Cal Poly staff that oversees the fraternities at Cal Poly: 18 I have reported these problems since 2021, yet they have only become worse, with more fraternities renting homes in the neighborhoods and converting them to full-fledged fraternity houses, hosting fraternity-related events at those properties. There is no accountability for Cal Poly and the City’s residents are paying the price. Finally, it is strange that the City is now rejecting the term “illegal fraternities” when they are, indeed, legally defined as “fraternities” per SLO’s laws and regulations, and they are operating “illegally”, according to those same laws and regulations. In my email correspondence with the City Attorney, she also referred to the illegal fraternity operations as “illegal fraternities”. 19 Why is the City now choosing to make the term “illegal fraternities” an issue? Is it because Cal Poly administration overseeing Greek Life has said they don’t like that term? Would you prefer “illegal fraternity houses”? Many of these are Main Chapter Houses, not so-called satellite houses. The City’s laws do not differentiate between the two and consider them all “fraternities” if members live there and they host fraternity-related events. The properties are illegal fraternities if they are operating in R-1 and R-2 zones, where it is illegal to operate, or without a CUP. During an SCLC meeting in the Spring 2025, a Cal Poly representative, Jason Mockford, said he wanted people to stop saying “illegal fraternities”. Mr. Mockford oversees Cal Poly’s Greek Life and approves the illegal parties and events in the City’s neighborhoods that are registered by fraternities with the Greek Life office 5-10 days beforehand. He knows all the addresses of the illegal fraternity operations, and understands that these events are illegal, yet they are “sanctioned” by him anyway. (See “Sanctioned Events” in Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report) Mr. Mockford also refused to discuss the ongoing negative impact on the City’s neighborhoods by those fraternities during the SCLC meetings when it was brought up by the Neighborhood Representative and the RQN Representative. It appears the City now claims it doesn’t use the term “illegal fraternities” because Mr. Mockford and Cal Poly don’t like that term. Are you now siding with Cal Poly? Please stop doing that. Please put the wellbeing on the City’s residents first and stop accommodating the nonsensical demands of Cal Poly. We - your constituents - desperately need you to focus on the extremely adverse impacts that these illegal fraternity operations are having on the neighborhoods and DO SOMETHING to stop them. It is not accurate for you to claim that Recommendation 3 has been implemented. Please cite the facts rather than responding to the Grand Jury with irrelevant and misleading information. Finding 4. The city has failed to consistently enforce CUPs such as the requirements for an annual list of parties and events, notification to neighbors, and parking plans. Strict enforcement of these conditions would contribute to a reduction of the disturbances in the neighborhoods. City Response: (F4) The City disagrees with this finding. The City has not proactively enforced the CUP requirements. Community Development oversees the CUPs for fraternity operations, but was not familiar with the conditions of the CUPs and was not aware that most fraternities do not have CUPs. SLOPD has a list of “premised” fraternity properties that are not eligible for a DAC, but many of those do not have CUPs to operate. The City does not work proactively to determine if violations of conditions are happening based on SLOPD’s records of noise citations, which also list the number of people at the event. CUPs have maximum occupancy limitations that are often violated, as shown on noise citations received by fraternity members at those that have CUPs. The City’s response says it enforces the conditions of CUPs when violations are reported and substantiated. They do not proactively oversee the CUPs and whether the conditions are violated. Community Development knows what the conditions are listed in the CUPs that allow a fraternity to operate. Downtown bars also have conditions for operation, such as maximum occupancy, and those things are monitored by the City. Yet violations of conditions for fraternity CUPs have been ignored which have led to a permissive environment and a lack of accountability. The City, including Code Enforcement and SLOPD, have never reported violations of conditions of the CUPs. It was the residents who reported them. In fact, every fraternity CUP had multiple violations of 20 the conditions of their CUPs when this issue was first reported to the City in fall 2023. But some fraternity CUPs were not reviewed, even though they had 4 or more recent violations of their CUPs. Before that, for at least 20 years, the City had never looked at the CUPS and fraternities were operating even though they had many violations of the conditions of their CUPs. Community Development should be proactive in enforcing the conditions of the CUPs, and also citing illegal fraternity operations in the neighborhoods to allow residents to have the peaceful enjoyment of their properties. To that end, please take real action to implement measures, including the Grand Jury’s Recommendations, that will make meaningful change in the neighborhoods and shut down the illegal fraternity operations. Thank you for taking the time to sort out this issue We are counting on you to do the right thing. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Monday, September 15, 2025 7:10 PM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: City Council Meeting 9/16, Agenda 9b Grand Jury Response Kathie, Thank you for taking the time to compile and share your responses to the Grand Jury report. I appreciate the detailed effort you’ve put into addressing the information provided. While I won’t speak to the city’s conclusions, I do think the tone of some of the corrections could be interpreted as overly defensive. I agree that a more balanced and constructive approach would likely be more effective in fostering understanding and engagement. 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 Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 7:23 PM, kathie walker < wrote: Dear Councilmembers, The City has published a lot of information in its pushback against the Grand Jury report and denial of all of the Grand Jury's Findings, including 27 pages of "clarifications" and a 14 page formal response to the Grand Jury. It is difficult to adequately address the large amount of information without overwhelming you but many of the City's claims are false, misleading, or do not tell the whole story. I have attached some information and documentation so that it is on the record, and hope that you will consider it in editing the City's response to the Grand Jury. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Monday, September 15, 2025 7:25 PM To:Francis, Emily Subject:Re: City Council Meeting 9/16, Agenda 9b Grand Jury Response Hi Emily, Thank you for taking the time to read my email. Yes, I could have been softer in my approach. That's true. I apologize if my tone was offensive. Since 2021, I have tried my best to get some momentum to solve that problem to the point where I wrote to the Grand Jury. It has been an extremely difficult and frustrating problem and I am truly at the end of my rope. I had no idea what the results of the Grand Jury investigation would be, but knew that they were impartial and would do their best, based on the information they had. I feel findings and recommendations were fair and am extremely disheartened by the City's response. In any event, I truly appreciate your email. Thank you for responding to me now, and in the past. Best Regards, Kathie On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 7:10 PM Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> wrote: Kathie, Thank you for taking the time to compile and share your responses to the Grand Jury report. I appreciate the detailed effort you’ve put into addressing the information provided. While I won’t speak to the city’s conclusions, I do think the tone of some of the corrections could be interpreted as overly defensive. I agree that a more balanced and constructive approach would likely be more effective in fostering understanding and engagement. Take care, Emily Emily Francis pronouns she/her/hers Council Member 2 Office of the City Council 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E EFrancis@slocity.org On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 7:23 PM, kathie walker < wrote: Dear Councilmembers, The City has published a lot of information in its pushback against the Grand Jury report and denial of all of the Grand Jury's Findings, including 27 pages of "clarifications" and a 14 page formal response to the Grand Jury. It is difficult to adequately address the large amount of information without overwhelming you but many of the City's claims are false, misleading, or do not tell the whole story. I have attached some information and documentation so that it is on the record, and hope that you will consider it in editing the City's response to the Grand Jury. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Monday, September 15, 2025 7:30 PM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: City Council Meeting 9/16, Agenda 9b Grand Jury Response Kathie, Oh gosh, I didn't mean you sounded defensive, I meant that the city report sounded defensive. Apologies for the confusion. I can't imagine how stressful this is for you. I'm hopeful that between Cal Poly seeing to take some of this more seriously and the city having a renewed focus on the issue, maybe we'll see some positive change this year. Take care during this time of transition. 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, Sep 15, 2025 at 7:25 PM, kathie walker < wrote: Hi Emily, Thank you for taking the time to read my email. Yes, I could have been softer in my approach. That's true. I apologize if my tone was offensive. Since 2021, I have tried my best to get some momentum to solve that problem to the point where I wrote to the Grand Jury. It has been an extremely difficult and frustrating problem and I am truly at the end of my rope. I had no idea what the results of the Grand Jury investigation would be, but knew that they were impartial and would do their best, based on the information they had. I feel findings and recommendations were fair and am extremely disheartened by the City's response. 2 In any event, I truly appreciate your email. Thank you for responding to me now, and in the past. Best Regards, Kathie On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 7:10 PM Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> wrote: Kathie, Thank you for taking the time to compile and share your responses to the Grand Jury report. I appreciate the detailed effort you’ve put into addressing the information provided. While I won’t speak to the city’s conclusions, I do think the tone of some of the corrections could be interpreted as overly defensive. I agree that a more balanced and constructive approach would likely be more effective in fostering understanding and engagement. 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 Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 7:23 PM, kathie walker < wrote: Dear Councilmembers, The City has published a lot of information in its pushback against the Grand Jury report and denial of all of the Grand Jury's Findings, including 27 pages of "clarifications" and a 14 page formal response to the Grand Jury. It is difficult to adequately address the large amount of information without overwhelming you but many of the City's claims are false, misleading, or do not tell the whole story. I have attached some information and documentation so that it is on the record, and hope that you will consider it in editing the City's response to the Grand Jury. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Monday, September 15, 2025 11:15 AM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: City Council Meeting 9/16, Agenda 9b Grand Jury Response Hi Kathie, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the upcoming meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2025 7:23 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: City Council Meeting 9/16, Agenda 9b Grand Jury Response Dear Councilmembers, The City has published a lot of information in its pushback against the Grand Jury report and denial of all of the Grand Jury's Findings, including 27 pages of "clarifications" and a 14 page formal response to the Grand Jury. It is difficult to adequately address the large amount of information without overwhelming you but many of the City's claims are false, misleading, or do not tell the whole story. I have attached some information and documentation so that it is on the record, and hope that you will consider it in editing the City's response to the Grand Jury. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:51 PM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Wow. That’s fascinating. Thanks for the detail. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:41:14 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Yes, it is true. The AB 524 Reports for each CSU have charts that show each fraternity and the number of members for each chapter. It's listed like this: I went through each report and tallied up the members, including existing members and new members. It changes every year and new SB 524 reports will be published on 10/1/2025. The totals from previous reports are based on information on the AB 524 reports are below. San Diego is the only other CSU that's close but their 2 student population is at least 50% larger and the city is also much larger. Plus they listed all of the addresses of their fraternity houses under the "Affiliated Chapter Houses" page and are not holding events in neighborhoods. Bakersfield - 22 Channel Islands - 28 Chico - 404 Dominguez Hills - 86 East Bay - 108 Fresno - 401 Fullerton - 175 Humboldt - 22 Long Beach - 717 Los Angeles - 72 Maritime - 0 Monterey Bay - 52 Northridge - 779 Pomona - 258 San Bernadino - 92 San Diego - 1,337 San Francisco - ? (nominal) San Jose - 466 San Luis Obispo - 1,777 not including Alpha Gamma Rho San Marcos - 246 Sonoma - 193 Stanislaus - 62 On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:26 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Thanks Kathie. I appreciate the advocacy and your assistance. I am curious about the source of the information you shared stating that cal poly has more Greek life members than any other CSU. Is that true? Do you have a source citation or link for that? Thanks. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:47:41 AM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@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: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Courtney Kienow the Director of Community Relations and Economic Development for President Armstrong's Office at Cal Poly sent you some correspondence for tonight's Council meeting. She admits that Cal Poly erased the addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities were holding fraternity events, which are mostly at illegal fraternity houses in residential neighborhoods. She claims this was done for (1) Privacy of students and (2) to be in alignment with many other CSUs. 3 1. Providing addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities are operating by holding fraternity-related events is not considered a violation of privacy under the law. In fact, there are many cases where addresses are released for more concerning reasons, yet they were ordered to be released under the California Public Records Act. Cal Poly is using "privacy" as an excuse that is not supported by the law. Further, Cal Poly only removed the addresses after they learned that it is illegal for fraternities to hold events in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. They removed the addresses to hide them from the city and the residents. 2. If all 23 CSUs, only five did not publish the addresses of fraternity events. Further, Cal Poly has the largest number of Greek Life members of any other CSU in California. And BY FAR the most impact on the community relative to the population of the city where they are located. I will provide the documentation later, when you have a chance to review it since this email is so close to the meeting time this evening. Just know that no other CSU in California has illegal fraternity operations overtaking the neighborhoods on such a scale as Cal Poly, SLO. This is a highly unique situation that has been allowed to get out of control to the point where residents are having to leave their homes and move away. That is not acceptable. The "outcomes" cited by Ms. Kienow are 1. There is now coordination with City officials to speak with students on the subject. e.g. Code Enforcement making a presentation to Greek Life. As you know, four days after that presentation, fraternities held events illegally in the residential neighborhoods, so it did not make a difference. 2. Call Poly is preparing fraternity members in the City's re-review of their Conditional Use Permits or how to get a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 3. Cal Poly now has copies of the CUPs. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly and only 4 have CUPs. One of those 4 was revoked and is under appeal and another is up for re-review. 4. The City sends noise violations to Cal Poly (which is has always done) and those at fraternity houses are sent to the IFC for "peer accountability". 5. Cal Poly has offered to consult with the City's Community Development Dept on the wording of the City- issued CUPs... This sounds like a terrible idea. Please do not allow Cal Poly to be involved in this process. Thank you for allowing me to clarify these comments. -Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:41 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Yes, it is true. The AB 524 Reports for each CSU have charts that show each fraternity and the number of members for each chapter. It's listed like this: I went through each report and tallied up the members, including existing members and new members. It changes every year and new SB 524 reports will be published on 10/1/2025. The totals from previous reports are based on information on the AB 524 reports are below. San Diego is the only other CSU that's close but their student population is at least 50% larger and the city is also much larger. Plus they listed all of the addresses of their fraternity houses under the "Affiliated Chapter Houses" page and are not holding events in neighborhoods. Bakersfield - 22 Channel Islands - 28 Chico - 404 Dominguez Hills - 86 East Bay - 108 Fresno - 401 Fullerton - 175 Humboldt - 22 Long Beach - 717 2 Los Angeles - 72 Maritime - 0 Monterey Bay - 52 Northridge - 779 Pomona - 258 San Bernadino - 92 San Diego - 1,337 San Francisco - ? (nominal) San Jose - 466 San Luis Obispo - 1,777 not including Alpha Gamma Rho San Marcos - 246 Sonoma - 193 Stanislaus - 62 On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:26 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Thanks Kathie. I appreciate the advocacy and your assistance. I am curious about the source of the information you shared stating that cal poly has more Greek life members than any other CSU. Is that true? Do you have a source citation or link for that? Thanks. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:47:41 AM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@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: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Courtney Kienow the Director of Community Relations and Economic Development for President Armstrong's Office at Cal Poly sent you some correspondence for tonight's Council meeting. She admits that Cal Poly erased the addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities were holding fraternity events, which are mostly at illegal fraternity houses in residential neighborhoods. She claims this was done for (1) Privacy of students and (2) to be in alignment with many other CSUs. 1. Providing addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities are operating by holding fraternity-related events is not considered a violation of privacy under the law. In fact, there are many cases where addresses are released for more concerning reasons, yet they were ordered to be released under the California Public Records Act. Cal Poly is using "privacy" as an excuse that is not supported by the law. Further, Cal Poly only removed the addresses after they learned that it is illegal for fraternities to hold events in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. They removed the addresses to hide them from the city and the residents. 2. If all 23 CSUs, only five did not publish the addresses of fraternity events. Further, Cal Poly has the largest number of Greek Life members of any other CSU in California. And BY FAR the most impact on the community 3 relative to the population of the city where they are located. I will provide the documentation later, when you have a chance to review it since this email is so close to the meeting time this evening. Just know that no other CSU in California has illegal fraternity operations overtaking the neighborhoods on such a scale as Cal Poly, SLO. This is a highly unique situation that has been allowed to get out of control to the point where residents are having to leave their homes and move away. That is not acceptable. The "outcomes" cited by Ms. Kienow are 1. There is now coordination with City officials to speak with students on the subject. e.g. Code Enforcement making a presentation to Greek Life. As you know, four days after that presentation, fraternities held events illegally in the residential neighborhoods, so it did not make a difference. 2. Call Poly is preparing fraternity members in the City's re-review of their Conditional Use Permits or how to get a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 3. Cal Poly now has copies of the CUPs. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly and only 4 have CUPs. One of those 4 was revoked and is under appeal and another is up for re-review. 4. The City sends noise violations to Cal Poly (which is has always done) and those at fraternity houses are sent to the IFC for "peer accountability". 5. Cal Poly has offered to consult with the City's Community Development Dept on the wording of the City- issued CUPs... This sounds like a terrible idea. Please do not allow Cal Poly to be involved in this process. Thank you for allowing me to clarify these comments. -Kathie Walker 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 3:47 PM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. That’s probably a sound idea. Thanks again. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 3:03:22 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Thank you for asking! I also found it fascinating. The reports for each year have differing figures. I see that Steve also wrote to you. He's at work and we haven't seen each other for a while or spoken about the issue. I think he mixed up figures from a different year's report? Not sure. I will send a report with all the details from each CSU later, when each of the Councilmembers have a chance to go over the details. I was thinking of waiting until the new AB 524 reports come out on 10/1 so the information was most current. On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:51 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Wow. That’s fascinating. Thanks for the detail. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:41:14 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. 2 Yes, it is true. The AB 524 Reports for each CSU have charts that show each fraternity and the number of members for each chapter. It's listed like this: I went through each report and tallied up the members, including existing members and new members. It changes every year and new SB 524 reports will be published on 10/1/2025. The totals from previous reports are based on information on the AB 524 reports are below. San Diego is the only other CSU that's close but their student population is at least 50% larger and the city is also much larger. Plus they listed all of the addresses of their fraternity houses under the "Affiliated Chapter Houses" page and are not holding events in neighborhoods. Bakersfield - 22 Channel Islands - 28 Chico - 404 Dominguez Hills - 86 East Bay - 108 Fresno - 401 Fullerton - 175 Humboldt - 22 Long Beach - 717 Los Angeles - 72 Maritime - 0 Monterey Bay - 52 Northridge - 779 Pomona - 258 San Bernadino - 92 San Diego - 1,337 3 San Francisco - ? (nominal) San Jose - 466 San Luis Obispo - 1,777 not including Alpha Gamma Rho San Marcos - 246 Sonoma - 193 Stanislaus - 62 On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:26 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Thanks Kathie. I appreciate the advocacy and your assistance. I am curious about the source of the information you shared stating that cal poly has more Greek life members than any other CSU. Is that true? Do you have a source citation or link for that? Thanks. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:47:41 AM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@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: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Courtney Kienow the Director of Community Relations and Economic Development for President Armstrong's Office at Cal Poly sent you some correspondence for tonight's Council meeting. She admits that Cal Poly erased the addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities were holding fraternity events, which are mostly at illegal fraternity houses in residential neighborhoods. She claims this was done for (1) Privacy of students and (2) to be in alignment with many other CSUs. 1. Providing addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities are operating by holding fraternity-related events is not considered a violation of privacy under the law. In fact, there are many cases where addresses are released for more concerning reasons, yet they were ordered to be released under the California Public Records Act. Cal Poly is using "privacy" as an excuse that is not supported by the law. Further, Cal Poly only removed the addresses after they learned that it is illegal for fraternities to hold events in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. They removed the addresses to hide them from the city and the residents. 2. If all 23 CSUs, only five did not publish the addresses of fraternity events. Further, Cal Poly has the largest number of Greek Life members of any other CSU in California. And BY FAR the most impact on the community relative to the population of the city where they are located. I will provide the documentation later, when you have a chance to review it since this email is so close to the meeting time this evening. Just know that no other CSU in California has illegal fraternity operations overtaking the neighborhoods on such a scale as Cal Poly, SLO. This is a highly unique situation that has been allowed to get out of control to the point where residents are having to leave their homes and move away. That is not acceptable. The "outcomes" cited by Ms. Kienow are 4 1. There is now coordination with City officials to speak with students on the subject. e.g. Code Enforcement making a presentation to Greek Life. As you know, four days after that presentation, fraternities held events illegally in the residential neighborhoods, so it did not make a difference. 2. Call Poly is preparing fraternity members in the City's re-review of their Conditional Use Permits or how to get a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 3. Cal Poly now has copies of the CUPs. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly and only 4 have CUPs. One of those 4 was revoked and is under appeal and another is up for re-review. 4. The City sends noise violations to Cal Poly (which is has always done) and those at fraternity houses are sent to the IFC for "peer accountability". 5. Cal Poly has offered to consult with the City's Community Development Dept on the wording of the City- issued CUPs... This sounds like a terrible idea. Please do not allow Cal Poly to be involved in this process. Thank you for allowing me to clarify these comments. -Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:48 AM To:Marx, Jan; Stewart, Erica A; Francis, Emily; Boswell, Mike; Shoresman, Michelle; E-mail Council Website Subject:Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Courtney Kienow the Director of Community Relations and Economic Development for President Armstrong's Office at Cal Poly sent you some correspondence for tonight's Council meeting. She admits that Cal Poly erased the addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities were holding fraternity events, which are mostly at illegal fraternity houses in residential neighborhoods. She claims this was done for (1) Privacy of students and (2) to be in alignment with many other CSUs. 1. Providing addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities are operating by holding fraternity-related events is not considered a violation of privacy under the law. In fact, there are many cases where addresses are released for more concerning reasons, yet they were ordered to be released under the California Public Records Act. Cal Poly is using "privacy" as an excuse that is not supported by the law. Further, Cal Poly only removed the addresses after they learned that it is illegal for fraternities to hold events in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. They removed the addresses to hide them from the city and the residents. 2. If all 23 CSUs, only five did not publish the addresses of fraternity events. Further, Cal Poly has the largest number of Greek Life members of any other CSU in California. And BY FAR the most impact on the community relative to the population of the city where they are located. I will provide the documentation later, when you have a chance to review it since this email is so close to the meeting time this evening. Just know that no other CSU in California has illegal fraternity operations overtaking the neighborhoods on such a scale as Cal Poly, SLO. This is a highly unique situation that has been allowed to get out of control to the point where residents are having to leave their homes and move away. That is not acceptable. The "outcomes" cited by Ms. Kienow are 1. There is now coordination with City officials to speak with students on the subject. e.g. Code Enforcement making a presentation to Greek Life. As you know, four days after that presentation, fraternities held events illegally in the residential neighborhoods, so it did not make a difference. 2. Call Poly is preparing fraternity members in the City's re-review of their Conditional Use Permits or how to get a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 3. Cal Poly now has copies of the CUPs. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly and only 4 have CUPs. One of those 4 was revoked and is under appeal and another is up for re-review. 4. The City sends noise violations to Cal Poly (which is has always done) and those at fraternity houses are sent to the IFC for "peer accountability". 5. Cal Poly has offered to consult with the City's Community Development Dept on the wording of the City- issued CUPs... This sounds like a terrible idea. Please do not allow Cal Poly to be involved in this process. Thank you for allowing me to clarify these comments. -Kathie Walker 2 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 5:20 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Yes, all universities in California must submit reports annually on October 1. It's now part of the Education Code. The CSU system made a specific template for all of its campuses to make filing it easier. I have not researched the UC system. On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 5:17 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: One more follow-up on this…do they have this for UCs also? I wonder what the difference is, if so. From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:41 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. 2 Yes, it is true. The AB 524 Reports for each CSU have charts that show each fraternity and the number of members for each chapter. It's listed like this: I went through each report and tallied up the members, including existing members and new members. It changes every year and new SB 524 reports will be published on 10/1/2025. The totals from previous reports are based on information on the AB 524 reports are below. San Diego is the only other CSU that's close but their student population is at least 50% larger and the city is also much larger. Plus they listed all of the addresses of their fraternity houses under the "Affiliated Chapter Houses" page and are not holding events in neighborhoods. Bakersfield - 22 Channel Islands - 28 Chico - 404 Dominguez Hills - 86 East Bay - 108 Fresno - 401 Fullerton - 175 3 Humboldt - 22 Long Beach - 717 Los Angeles - 72 Maritime - 0 Monterey Bay - 52 Northridge - 779 Pomona - 258 San Bernadino - 92 San Diego - 1,337 San Francisco - ? (nominal) San Jose - 466 San Luis Obispo - 1,777 not including Alpha Gamma Rho San Marcos - 246 Sonoma - 193 Stanislaus - 62 On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:26 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Thanks Kathie. I appreciate the advocacy and your assistance. I am curious about the source of the information you shared stating that cal poly has more Greek life members than any other CSU. Is that true? Do you have a source citation or link for that? Thanks. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo 4 From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:47:41 AM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@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: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Courtney Kienow the Director of Community Relations and Economic Development for President Armstrong's Office at Cal Poly sent you some correspondence for tonight's Council meeting. She admits that Cal Poly erased the addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities were holding fraternity events, which are mostly at illegal fraternity houses in residential neighborhoods. She claims this was done for (1) Privacy of students and (2) to be in alignment with many other CSUs. 1. Providing addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities are operating by holding fraternity-related events is not considered a violation of privacy under the law. In fact, there are many cases where addresses are released for more concerning reasons, yet they were ordered to be released under the California Public Records Act. Cal Poly is using "privacy" as an excuse that is not supported by the law. Further, Cal Poly only removed the addresses after they learned that it is illegal for fraternities to hold events in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. They removed the addresses to hide them from the city and the residents. 2. If all 23 CSUs, only five did not publish the addresses of fraternity events. Further, Cal Poly has the largest number of Greek Life members of any other CSU in California. And BY FAR the most impact on the community relative to the population of the city where they are located. I will provide the documentation later, when you have a chance to review it since this email is so close to the meeting time this evening. Just know that no other CSU in California has illegal fraternity operations overtaking the neighborhoods on such a scale as Cal Poly, SLO. This is a highly unique situation that has been allowed to get out of control to the point where residents are having to leave their homes and move away. That is not acceptable. The "outcomes" cited by Ms. Kienow are 1. There is now coordination with City officials to speak with students on the subject. e.g. Code Enforcement making a presentation to Greek Life. As you know, four days after that presentation, fraternities held events illegally in the residential neighborhoods, so it did not make a difference. 5 2. Call Poly is preparing fraternity members in the City's re-review of their Conditional Use Permits or how to get a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 3. Cal Poly now has copies of the CUPs. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly and only 4 have CUPs. One of those 4 was revoked and is under appeal and another is up for re-review. 4. The City sends noise violations to Cal Poly (which is has always done) and those at fraternity houses are sent to the IFC for "peer accountability". 5. Cal Poly has offered to consult with the City's Community Development Dept on the wording of the City- issued CUPs... This sounds like a terrible idea. Please do not allow Cal Poly to be involved in this process. Thank you for allowing me to clarify these comments. -Kathie Walker 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:26 PM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Thanks Kathie. I appreciate the advocacy and your assistance. I am curious about the source of the information you shared stating that cal poly has more Greek life members than any other CSU. Is that true? Do you have a source citation or link for that? Thanks. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:47:41 AM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@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: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Courtney Kienow the Director of Community Relations and Economic Development for President Armstrong's Office at Cal Poly sent you some correspondence for tonight's Council meeting. She admits that Cal Poly erased the addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities were holding fraternity events, which are mostly at illegal fraternity houses in residential neighborhoods. She claims this was done for (1) Privacy of students and (2) to be in alignment with many other CSUs. 1. Providing addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities are operating by holding fraternity-related events is not considered a violation of privacy under the law. In fact, there are many cases where addresses are released for more concerning reasons, yet they were ordered to be released under the California Public Records Act. Cal Poly is using "privacy" as an excuse that is not supported by the law. Further, Cal Poly only removed the addresses after they learned that it is illegal for fraternities to hold events in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. They removed the addresses to hide them from the city and the residents. 2. If all 23 CSUs, only five did not publish the addresses of fraternity events. Further, Cal Poly has the largest number of Greek Life members of any other CSU in California. And BY FAR the most impact on the community relative to the population of the city where they are located. I will provide the documentation later, when you have a chance to review it since this email is so close to the meeting time this evening. Just know that no other CSU in California has illegal fraternity operations overtaking the neighborhoods on such a scale as Cal Poly, SLO. This is a highly unique situation that has been allowed to get out of control to the point where residents are having to leave their homes and move away. That is not acceptable. The "outcomes" cited by Ms. Kienow are 2 1. There is now coordination with City officials to speak with students on the subject. e.g. Code Enforcement making a presentation to Greek Life. As you know, four days after that presentation, fraternities held events illegally in the residential neighborhoods, so it did not make a difference. 2. Call Poly is preparing fraternity members in the City's re-review of their Conditional Use Permits or how to get a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 3. Cal Poly now has copies of the CUPs. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly and only 4 have CUPs. One of those 4 was revoked and is under appeal and another is up for re-review. 4. The City sends noise violations to Cal Poly (which is has always done) and those at fraternity houses are sent to the IFC for "peer accountability". 5. Cal Poly has offered to consult with the City's Community Development Dept on the wording of the City- issued CUPs... This sounds like a terrible idea. Please do not allow Cal Poly to be involved in this process. Thank you for allowing me to clarify these comments. -Kathie Walker 1 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:53 AM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Hi Kathie, Thank you for your additional input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for tonight’s meeting. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:48 AM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@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: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Courtney Kienow the Director of Community Relations and Economic Development for President Armstrong's Office at Cal Poly sent you some correspondence for tonight's Council meeting. She admits that Cal Poly erased the addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities were holding fraternity events, which are mostly at illegal fraternity houses in residential neighborhoods. She claims this was done for (1) Privacy of students and (2) to be in alignment with many other CSUs. 1. Providing addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities are operating by holding fraternity-related events is not considered a violation of privacy under the law. In fact, there are many cases where addresses are released for more concerning reasons, yet they were ordered to be released under the California Public Records Act. Cal Poly is using "privacy" as an excuse that is not supported by the law. Further, Cal Poly only removed the addresses after they learned that it is illegal for fraternities to hold events in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. They removed the addresses to hide them from the city and the residents. 2 2. If all 23 CSUs, only five did not publish the addresses of fraternity events. Further, Cal Poly has the largest number of Greek Life members of any other CSU in California. And BY FAR the most impact on the community relative to the population of the city where they are located. I will provide the documentation later, when you have a chance to review it since this email is so close to the meeting time this evening. Just know that no other CSU in California has illegal fraternity operations overtaking the neighborhoods on such a scale as Cal Poly, SLO. This is a highly unique situation that has been allowed to get out of control to the point where residents are having to leave their homes and move away. That is not acceptable. The "outcomes" cited by Ms. Kienow are 1. There is now coordination with City officials to speak with students on the subject. e.g. Code Enforcement making a presentation to Greek Life. As you know, four days after that presentation, fraternities held events illegally in the residential neighborhoods, so it did not make a difference. 2. Call Poly is preparing fraternity members in the City's re-review of their Conditional Use Permits or how to get a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 3. Cal Poly now has copies of the CUPs. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly and only 4 have CUPs. One of those 4 was revoked and is under appeal and another is up for re-review. 4. The City sends noise violations to Cal Poly (which is has always done) and those at fraternity houses are sent to the IFC for "peer accountability". 5. Cal Poly has offered to consult with the City's Community Development Dept on the wording of the City- issued CUPs... This sounds like a terrible idea. Please do not allow Cal Poly to be involved in this process. Thank you for allowing me to clarify these comments. -Kathie Walker 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 5:17 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. One more follow-up on this…do they have this for UCs also? I wonder what the difference is, if so. From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:41 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Yes, it is true. The AB 524 Reports for each CSU have charts that show each fraternity and the number of members for each chapter. It's listed like this: I went through each report and tallied up the members, including existing members and new members. It changes every year and new SB 524 reports will be published on 10/1/2025. The totals from previous reports are based on information on the AB 524 reports are below. San Diego is the only other CSU that's close but their student population is at least 50% larger and the city is also much larger. Plus they listed all of the addresses of their fraternity houses under the "Affiliated Chapter Houses" page and are not holding events in neighborhoods. Bakersfield - 22 Channel Islands - 28 2 Chico - 404 Dominguez Hills - 86 East Bay - 108 Fresno - 401 Fullerton - 175 Humboldt - 22 Long Beach - 717 Los Angeles - 72 Maritime - 0 Monterey Bay - 52 Northridge - 779 Pomona - 258 San Bernadino - 92 San Diego - 1,337 San Francisco - ? (nominal) San Jose - 466 San Luis Obispo - 1,777 not including Alpha Gamma Rho San Marcos - 246 Sonoma - 193 Stanislaus - 62 On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:26 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Thanks Kathie. I appreciate the advocacy and your assistance. I am curious about the source of the information you shared stating that cal poly has more Greek life members than any other CSU. Is that true? Do you have a source citation or link for that? Thanks. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:47:41 AM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@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: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Courtney Kienow the Director of Community Relations and Economic Development for President Armstrong's Office at Cal Poly sent you some correspondence for tonight's Council meeting. She admits that Cal Poly erased the addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities were holding fraternity events, which are mostly at illegal fraternity houses in residential neighborhoods. She claims this was done for (1) Privacy of students and (2) to be in alignment with many other CSUs. 1. Providing addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities are operating by holding fraternity-related events is not considered a violation of privacy under the law. In fact, there are many cases where addresses are released for more concerning reasons, yet they were ordered to be released under the California Public Records Act. Cal Poly is using "privacy" as an excuse that is not supported by the law. 3 Further, Cal Poly only removed the addresses after they learned that it is illegal for fraternities to hold events in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. They removed the addresses to hide them from the city and the residents. 2. If all 23 CSUs, only five did not publish the addresses of fraternity events. Further, Cal Poly has the largest number of Greek Life members of any other CSU in California. And BY FAR the most impact on the community relative to the population of the city where they are located. I will provide the documentation later, when you have a chance to review it since this email is so close to the meeting time this evening. Just know that no other CSU in California has illegal fraternity operations overtaking the neighborhoods on such a scale as Cal Poly, SLO. This is a highly unique situation that has been allowed to get out of control to the point where residents are having to leave their homes and move away. That is not acceptable. The "outcomes" cited by Ms. Kienow are 1. There is now coordination with City officials to speak with students on the subject. e.g. Code Enforcement making a presentation to Greek Life. As you know, four days after that presentation, fraternities held events illegally in the residential neighborhoods, so it did not make a difference. 2. Call Poly is preparing fraternity members in the City's re-review of their Conditional Use Permits or how to get a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 3. Cal Poly now has copies of the CUPs. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly and only 4 have CUPs. One of those 4 was revoked and is under appeal and another is up for re-review. 4. The City sends noise violations to Cal Poly (which is has always done) and those at fraternity houses are sent to the IFC for "peer accountability". 5. Cal Poly has offered to consult with the City's Community Development Dept on the wording of the City- issued CUPs... This sounds like a terrible idea. Please do not allow Cal Poly to be involved in this process. Thank you for allowing me to clarify these comments. -Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 3:03 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Thank you for asking! I also found it fascinating. The reports for each year have differing figures. I see that Steve also wrote to you. He's at work and we haven't seen each other for a while or spoken about the issue. I think he mixed up figures from a different year's report? Not sure. I will send a report with all the details from each CSU later, when each of the Councilmembers have a chance to go over the details. I was thinking of waiting until the new AB 524 reports come out on 10/1 so the information was most current. On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:51 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Wow. That’s fascinating. Thanks for the detail. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:41:14 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. 2 Yes, it is true. The AB 524 Reports for each CSU have charts that show each fraternity and the number of members for each chapter. It's listed like this: I went through each report and tallied up the members, including existing members and new members. It changes every year and new SB 524 reports will be published on 10/1/2025. The totals from previous reports are based on information on the AB 524 reports are below. San Diego is the only other CSU that's close but their student population is at least 50% larger and the city is also much larger. Plus they listed all of the addresses of their fraternity houses under the "Affiliated Chapter Houses" page and are not holding events in neighborhoods. Bakersfield - 22 Channel Islands - 28 Chico - 404 Dominguez Hills - 86 East Bay - 108 Fresno - 401 Fullerton - 175 Humboldt - 22 Long Beach - 717 Los Angeles - 72 Maritime - 0 Monterey Bay - 52 Northridge - 779 Pomona - 258 San Bernadino - 92 San Diego - 1,337 3 San Francisco - ? (nominal) San Jose - 466 San Luis Obispo - 1,777 not including Alpha Gamma Rho San Marcos - 246 Sonoma - 193 Stanislaus - 62 On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:26 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Thanks Kathie. I appreciate the advocacy and your assistance. I am curious about the source of the information you shared stating that cal poly has more Greek life members than any other CSU. Is that true? Do you have a source citation or link for that? Thanks. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:47:41 AM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@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: Clarification re: Kienow correspondence for 7.b. Courtney Kienow the Director of Community Relations and Economic Development for President Armstrong's Office at Cal Poly sent you some correspondence for tonight's Council meeting. She admits that Cal Poly erased the addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities were holding fraternity events, which are mostly at illegal fraternity houses in residential neighborhoods. She claims this was done for (1) Privacy of students and (2) to be in alignment with many other CSUs. 1. Providing addresses where Cal Poly's fraternities are operating by holding fraternity-related events is not considered a violation of privacy under the law. In fact, there are many cases where addresses are released for more concerning reasons, yet they were ordered to be released under the California Public Records Act. Cal Poly is using "privacy" as an excuse that is not supported by the law. Further, Cal Poly only removed the addresses after they learned that it is illegal for fraternities to hold events in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods. They removed the addresses to hide them from the city and the residents. 2. If all 23 CSUs, only five did not publish the addresses of fraternity events. Further, Cal Poly has the largest number of Greek Life members of any other CSU in California. And BY FAR the most impact on the community relative to the population of the city where they are located. I will provide the documentation later, when you have a chance to review it since this email is so close to the meeting time this evening. Just know that no other CSU in California has illegal fraternity operations overtaking the neighborhoods on such a scale as Cal Poly, SLO. This is a highly unique situation that has been allowed to get out of control to the point where residents are having to leave their homes and move away. That is not acceptable. The "outcomes" cited by Ms. Kienow are 4 1. There is now coordination with City officials to speak with students on the subject. e.g. Code Enforcement making a presentation to Greek Life. As you know, four days after that presentation, fraternities held events illegally in the residential neighborhoods, so it did not make a difference. 2. Call Poly is preparing fraternity members in the City's re-review of their Conditional Use Permits or how to get a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 3. Cal Poly now has copies of the CUPs. There are 19 fraternities at Cal Poly and only 4 have CUPs. One of those 4 was revoked and is under appeal and another is up for re-review. 4. The City sends noise violations to Cal Poly (which is has always done) and those at fraternity houses are sent to the IFC for "peer accountability". 5. Cal Poly has offered to consult with the City's Community Development Dept on the wording of the City- issued CUPs... This sounds like a terrible idea. Please do not allow Cal Poly to be involved in this process. Thank you for allowing me to clarify these comments. -Kathie Walker 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:23 PM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: Links to other CSU AB524 Reports I can go look for it, but I suspect you also have the San Diego link? If so, if you can pass that along too, it would be great. Thanks! I will be talking with Courtney in the next several days and will bring some of this up at my next Campus Planning Meeting. Thank you again. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 4:08:56 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Links to other CSU AB524 Reports I just read the Staff correspondence to you and see that Cal Poly claimed that all other CSUs did not provide addresses. This is absolutely false and I feel I need to provide you with accurate information. I was waiting until the new AB 524 reports on 10/1/2025 to prepare updated information, but here is a link to CSU Chico's report to show how they reported the information, similar to other CSUs. Each page for the various fraternities and sororities lists the addresses of each event, number of members, GPA, etc. Most other CSUs provided the same information. Also, other CSUs that have more active Greek Life, like San Diego, listed the addresses of each fraternity house and held events at those locations, not in the neighborhoods. Chico State AB 524 Report: https://www.csuchico.edu/fsa/_assets/documents/2024-ab524-report.pdf 1 From:Stewart, Erica A Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 4:12 PM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: Links to other CSU AB524 Reports Thank you, Kathie. This is very helpful. All the best, 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 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: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 4:08:56 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Links to other CSU AB524 Reports I just read the Staff correspondence to you and see that Cal Poly claimed that all other CSUs did not provide addresses. This is absolutely false and I feel I need to provide you with accurate information. I was waiting until the new AB 524 reports on 10/1/2025 to prepare updated information, but here is a link to CSU Chico's report to show how they reported the information, similar to other CSUs. Each page for the various fraternities and sororities lists the addresses of each event, number of members, GPA, etc. Most other CSUs provided the same information. Also, other CSUs that have more active Greek Life, like San Diego, listed the addresses of each fraternity house and held events at those locations, not in the neighborhoods. Chico State AB 524 Report: https://www.csuchico.edu/fsa/_assets/documents/2024-ab524-report.pdf 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 4:09 PM To:Marx, Jan; Stewart, Erica A; Shoresman, Michelle; Boswell, Mike; Francis, Emily Subject:Links to other CSU AB524 Reports I just read the Staff correspondence to you and see that Cal Poly claimed that all other CSUs did not provide addresses. This is absolutely false and I feel I need to provide you with accurate information. I was waiting until the new AB 524 reports on 10/1/2025 to prepare updated information, but here is a link to CSU Chico's report to show how they reported the information, similar to other CSUs. Each page for the various fraternities and sororities lists the addresses of each event, number of members, GPA, etc. Most other CSUs provided the same information. Also, other CSUs that have more active Greek Life, like San Diego, listed the addresses of each fraternity house and held events at those locations, not in the neighborhoods. Chico State AB 524 Report: https://www.csuchico.edu/fsa/_assets/documents/2024-ab524-report.pdf 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:29 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: All CSU's AB524 Reports Thank you for digging in deep to try to understand. And I hope you get some rest! Yes, there is a big difference between a bunch of friends who are in a fraternity and live in a house. That is not a fraternity. (And there are a lot of those in the neighborhood but most of the guys are really respectful.) There is no problem with a house with a group of fraternity members when they don't hold events. The events are the problem. A fraternity is defined by SLO muni code and zoning regs as a residence where Cal Poly fraternity members live and where they also host fraternity-related events. All of those addresses I sent meet that definition. Fraternity members live at those houses and they also hold fraternity-related events. The events at those fraternity houses were documented in Cal Poly's AB 524 report before they erased the addresses on 7/1/2024. But before Cal Poly published its first report, I had already spent a year going through the fraternities' social media pages and documenting rush events, etc. because we had several fraternities move in around our home, Derek Johnson told me they weren't legal, and I wanted to make sure I had documentation to show they were operating as fraternities according to the City's definition. I had a list of the addresses already, and when the AB 524 report was published, I cross-referenced the addresses in the report with the addresses I'd documented and they matched. I met with Timmi Tway and John Mezzapesa, with Derek's encouragement, and gave them all of the documentation in Fall 2023. The "yes" and "no" on the documents I provided are related to whether or not the CSU provided the addresses for the fraternity events in their AB 524 reports. According to staff correspondence for last night's agenda, Cal Poly claimed that they erased all the addresses because they were the only CSU that published specific addresses, so removed the addresses to be in alignment with other CSU campuses. But that claim is not true. 2 I went through all the AB 524 reports for all CSUs and indicated "yes" if they published the addresses of the fraternity events and "no if they did not publish the addresses of fraternity events. Essentially, I wanted to show that most CSUs did publish the addresses of the fraternity events in their AB 524 reports. I am not sure which CSU campuses have Greek Rows. It seemed that San Jose and San Diego may have them because they listed the addresses of their chapter houses and most events were held there. Also, most of the CSUs have a fairly small Greek population compared to the student population so a Greek Row may not make sense. I know many UCs and private universities do have them. It would be helpful to understand what is working in other communities and what is not working. For example, my research has shown there have been problems at Northridge but that was a while back. I will look the Greek Row situation at other CSUs. One other thing to consider (sorry...this is long, but there it is an extremely multifaceted issue): CUPs have a maximum occupancy for events which is pretty small. For example, Alpha Epsilon Pi's CUP allows 25 people max at any event. The Planning Commission questioned them about whether they needed to find a larger house because it did not seem that it could accommodate their membership. But the fraternity members love their house and said that they hold meetings on campus and did not want to move. A few months later, Alpha Epsilon Pi had back to back noise citations with 150 people and 100 people. It goes to show that the max occupancy of fraternity houses cannot realistically accommodate a fraternity event. Shortly after, they got another citation with 100 people next door, at their (illegal) satellite house at 331 Hathway, zoned R2. They probably held the event there so they didn't trigger a re-review of their CUP with three violations at their main chapter house. Even large properties, like Lambda Chi Alpha which has five separate addresses on Foothill and Monte Vista has a max occupancy of 48 for any event. They got five noise citations last year and one listed 200 people at the party. I think they are going to be re-reviewed soon by the Planning Commission. Timmi and John have indicated that is going to happen. So the situation with the occupancy limitations and other impacts keeps bringing me to the conclusion that Cal Poly should provide the land on campus and allow the fraternity organizations to build their own houses to accommodate a lot more people than could legally be allowed within the City, per the zoning regulations and other limitations. The Planning Commission has often said that the only solution is a Greek Row on campus. Thank you for bearing through this with me. I appreciate all of your questions. -Kathie On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 8:45 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Thanks Kathie. I look forward to looking at this over the weekend in more detail. I am not able to digest tonight after a long day of work and family obligations. But, I DO very much appreciate the research. 3 I DO think there is a difference between a bunch of friends that happen to be in the same fraternity, and a “fraternity house” hosting events. I think that is what you are saying about the distinction the Mayor made. If not, please clarify for me. I really AM trying to understand all the “angles” so that, as you say, we can work together on solving these issues. Michelle From: kathie walker < Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:33 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org> Cc: RQN of SLO <rqn.board@yahoo.com> Subject: All CSU's AB524 Reports Michelle Shoresman requested links to some AB 524 reports for other campuses to see whether they have included the addresses for fraternity events. I thought it would be good to share the information with all of you. The report is attached with the links for each of the CSU Report. I realize that even if this information is presented to Courtney Kienow, Maren Hufton (attorney for Cal Poly) or other legal counsel, or event Jeff Armstrong, it is not going to change anything. They do not want to disclose the addresses. Maybe they do now believe they are following the terms of AB 524, even after they initially published the addresses on 10/1/2023 and erased them on 7/1/2024. For the sake of the argument, let's say they don't have a legal requirement to publish the addresses in the AB 524 reports. That still does not absolve them of the responsibility to turn over the addresses to the city and the public according to the California Public Records Act. That is the key to solving this issue since they won't voluntarily turn over the addresses is to file a writ and a judge will order them to release the information. The information is not protected by the CPRA under privacy or any other exemption. I prepared a writ of mandate and sent it to you last year. I'm not a lawyer but I am a paralegal from a law school accredited by the ABA, although it has been a long time since I've practiced. Still, the document has a lot of relevant case law. 4 Once the addresses are disclosed, the city can continue to ask for updated the addresses. Then, you can hold the property owners responsible. The fraternities don't own these properties. They are rental homes in our neighborhood that were converted to Main Chapter Houses and satellite houses for fraternities. (The City does not make any legal distinction between them; they are all considered "fraternities" if fraternity members live there and hold fraternity-related events.) The property owners have already received notices from the City and know they are violating the law by allowing fraternity events to be held on their properties. It is lucrative for the property owners to rent the properties to fraternities. I want to address one other thing that was brought up by Erica Stewart at the Council meeting last night. There seems to be some misunderstanding about residents having a problem with students living together who aren't hosting fraternity events. I thought clearly addressed this issue but somehow the message isn't being received: The groups of fraternity guys who live together and don't host events are not considered "fraternities" by the City's laws and they are not the problem The list of addresses provided to you have hosted documented fraternity-related events, in violation of the law. They continue to operate illegally as fraternity houses. The matter is not about civil rights or who can occupy a house. It's about the Cal Poly "fraternities" defined by the City's laws. Unfortunately, the City has not shut down a single illegal fraternity house even though they were listed in Cal Poly's AB 524 report and continue to operate today. I look forward to working together to solve this issue and bring peace back to our neighborhood for ALL who live there, including students, professionals, retirees, etc. Thank you, Kathie Walker Here is each of the CSU campuses, with the number of IFC fraternity members and whether or not they disclosed the addresses of fraternity related events. Please note that San Diego has a student population at least 50% higher than Cal Poly, is a larger city than SLO, and less fraternity members. Also, they have listed the addresses of their fraternity houses while Cal Poly has only listed 6 of 19 current fraternities operating. Bakersfield, 45, Yes Channel Islands, 67, Yes Chico, 264, Yes Dominguez Hills, 66, Yes East Bay, 53, Yes 5 Fresno, 32, Yes Fullerton, 111, No (The format is incorrect and they did not seem to understand the report) Humboldt, 19, Yes Long Beach, 440, No Los Angeles, 33, Yes Maritime, 0 Monterey Bay, 5, Yes Northridge, 779, Yes Pomona, 258, No Sacramento, 232, Yes San Diego, 1,381, Yes San Francisco, ? (nominal) The format is incorrect and unclear if there are IFC fraternities San Luis Obispo, 1,694, No (addresses were erased from the 10/1/2023 report after Cal Poly was contacted by City Code Enforcement) San Marcos, 246, No Sonoma, 193, Yes Stanislaus, 62, Yes 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:33 AM To:E-mail Council Website; Shoresman, Michelle; Francis, Emily; Stewart, Erica A; Marx, Jan; Boswell, Mike Cc:RQN of SLO Subject:All CSU's AB524 Reports Attachments:AB 524 Reports CSU campuses.pdf Michelle Shoresman requested links to some AB 524 reports for other campuses to see whether they have included the addresses for fraternity events. I thought it would be good to share the information with all of you. The report is attached with the links for each of the CSU Report. I realize that even if this information is presented to Courtney Kienow, Maren Hufton (attorney for Cal Poly) or other legal counsel, or event Jeff Armstrong, it is not going to change anything. They do not want to disclose the addresses. Maybe they do now believe they are following the terms of AB 524, even after they initially published the addresses on 10/1/2023 and erased them on 7/1/2024. For the sake of the argument, let's say they don't have a legal requirement to publish the addresses in the AB 524 reports. That still does not absolve them of the responsibility to turn over the addresses to the city and the public according to the California Public Records Act. That is the key to solving this issue since they won't voluntarily turn over the addresses is to file a writ and a judge will order them to release the information. The information is not protected by the CPRA under privacy or any other exemption. I prepared a writ of mandate and sent it to you last year. I'm not a lawyer but I am a paralegal from a law school accredited by the ABA, although it has been a long time since I've practiced. Still, the document has a lot of relevant case law. Once the addresses are disclosed, the city can continue to ask for updated the addresses. Then, you can hold the property owners responsible. The fraternities don't own these properties. They are rental homes in our neighborhood that were converted to Main Chapter Houses and satellite houses for fraternities. (The City does not make any legal distinction between them; they are all considered "fraternities" if fraternity members live there and hold fraternity-related events.) The property owners have already received notices from the City and know they are violating the law by allowing fraternity events to be held on their properties. It is lucrative for the property owners to rent the properties to fraternities. I want to address one other thing that was brought up by Erica Stewart at the Council meeting last night. There seems to be some misunderstanding about residents having a problem with students living together who aren't hosting fraternity events. I thought clearly addressed this issue but somehow the message isn't being received: The groups of fraternity guys who live together and don't host events are not considered "fraternities" by the City's laws and they are not the problem The list of addresses provided to you have hosted documented fraternity-related events, in violation of the law. They continue to operate illegally as fraternity houses. The matter is not about civil rights or who can occupy a house. It's about the Cal Poly "fraternities" defined by the City's laws. Unfortunately, the City has not shut down a single illegal fraternity house even though they were listed in Cal Poly's AB 524 report and continue to operate today. 2 I look forward to working together to solve this issue and bring peace back to our neighborhood for ALL who live there, including students, professionals, retirees, etc. Thank you, Kathie Walker Here is each of the CSU campuses, with the number of IFC fraternity members and whether or not they disclosed the addresses of fraternity related events. Please note that San Diego has a student population at least 50% higher than Cal Poly, is a larger city than SLO, and less fraternity members. Also, they have listed the addresses of their fraternity houses while Cal Poly has only listed 6 of 19 current fraternities operating. Bakersfield, 45, Yes Channel Islands, 67, Yes Chico, 264, Yes Dominguez Hills, 66, Yes East Bay, 53, Yes Fresno, 32, Yes Fullerton, 111, No (The format is incorrect and they did not seem to understand the report) Humboldt, 19, Yes Long Beach, 440, No Los Angeles, 33, Yes Maritime, 0 Monterey Bay, 5, Yes Northridge, 779, Yes Pomona, 258, No Sacramento, 232, Yes San Diego, 1,381, Yes San Francisco, ? (nominal) The format is incorrect and unclear if there are IFC fraternities San Luis Obispo, 1,694, No (addresses were erased from the 10/1/2023 report after Cal Poly was contacted by City Code Enforcement) San Marcos, 246, No Sonoma, 193, Yes Stanislaus, 62, Yes Assembly Bill 524 Reports: Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act CSU Campus Locations: 1. Bakersfield: a. 3 Sororities (Gamma Phi Beta, Nu Phi Chi, Phi Sigma Kappa) b. 1 Fraternity (Delta Zeta Tau) 45 Fraternity members at CSU Bakersfield • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities - Zero • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? YES, addresses were reported on CSU Bakersfield’s AB 524 Report at the following link: https://www.csub.edu/studentorg/_files/Campus_Recognized_SAFTA_2022_2023.pdf Example below: 2. Channel Islands: a. 3 Sororities Alpha Delta Psi, Sigma Omega Nu, Zeta Pi Omega b. 1 Fraternity Beta Gamma Nu 67 Fraternity members at CSU Channel Islands • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities - Zero • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? Yes , events were held at business locations that were identifiable. Buffalo Wild Wings, Dave & Busters, etc. There were not other off-campus events listed. https://asi.csuci.edu/clubs-organizations/fraternity-and-sorority-life-2022-2023-annual-report.htm 3. Chico: a. 6 Sororities Alpha Delta Pi, Alpha Gamma Delta, Alpha Phi, Gamma Phi Beta, Sigma Alpha, Sigma Kappa b. 9 Fraternities Alpha Epsilon Pi (12) Alpha Gamma Rho (5), Gamma Zeta Alpha (12), Kappa Sigma (48), Lambda Chi Alpha (37), Phi Delta Theta (39), Phi Kappa Tau (55), Sigma Chi (45), Tau Kappa Epsilon (11) 264 Total Fraternity members at CSU Chico Link: https://www.csuchico.edu/fsa/_assets/documents/2024-ab524-report.pdf • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities 8 out of 9 Fraternities 1. Alpha Epsilon Pi, 709 Ivy St, Chico, CA 95928 2. Alpha Gamma Rho, 224 Ivy St, Chico, CA 95928 3. Kappa Sigma, 536 W. 3rd St, Chico, CA 93528 4. Lambda Chi Alpha, 216 Hazel St, Chico, CA 93528 5. Phi Delta Theta, 315 Ivy St, Chico, CA 95928 6. Phi Kappa Tau, 611 W. 5th St, Chico, CA 93928 7. Sigma Chi, 408 Ivy St, Chico, CA 95928 8. Tau Kappa Epsilon, 47 Cobblestone Dr, Chico, CA 95928 • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? YES, Addresses for off-campus events were reported on CSU Chico’s AB 524 Report. Note: CSU Chico has a deferred rush policy and does not allow Freshmen to pledge fraternities in the fall. 4. Dominguez Hills: a. 10 Sororities (Alpha Kappa Alpha, Delta Sigma Theta, Kappa Delta Chi, Lambda Theta Alpha, Lambda Theta Nu, Omega Phi Chi, Sigma Gamma Rho, Sigma Iota Alpha, Sigma Lambda Gamma, Zeta Phi Beta) b. 9 Fraternities (Alpha Pi Alpha (6), Gamma Zeta Alpha (6), Lambda Theta Phi (10), Omega Delta Phi (15), Omega Psi Phi (2), Phi Beta Sigma (3), Phi Iota Alpha (15), Phi Kappa Theta (2), Sigma Lambda Beta(7)) 66 total Fraternity members at CSU Dominguez Hills • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities - Zero • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? YES, addresses for events were reported on CSU Dominguez Hill’s AB 524 Report. https://www.csudh.edu/Assets/csudh-sites/student-life/docs/greek-life/new-folderpresentations/2023- 2024%20Campus%20Recognized%20Sorority%20and%20Fraternity%20Transparency%20Act_.pdf 5. East Bay: a. 5 Sororities (Alpha Kappa Omicron, Alpha Phi International, Kappa Xi, Sigma Omega Nu, Sigma Sigma Sigma) b. 5 Fraternities (Alpha Kappa Omega (12) Delta Chi (17), Sigma Delta Upsilon (5), Tau Kappa Epsilon (11), Zeta Omega (8) 53 Total Fraternity members reported at CSU East Bay • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities - Zero • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? YES, on-campus events identified as “Cal State East Bay” and most addresses for off-campus events were reported on CSU East Bay’s AB 524 Report. https://www.csueastbay.edu/clubsandorgs/files/docs/greek-life/ab524-20232024-report.pdf 6. Fresno: a. 6 Sororities (Delta Gamma, Delta Zeta, Kappa Alpha Theta, Kappa Kappa Gamma, Phi Mu, Sigma Alpha) b. 11 Fraternities (Alpha Gamma Rho (61), Alpha Sigma Phi (26), Delta Sigma Phi (18), Kappa Sigma (23), Lambda Chi Alpha (49), Phi Delta Theta (30), Pi Kappa Alpha (41), Sigma Alpha Epsilon (25), Sigma Chi (17), Sigma Nu (7), Sigma Phi Epsilon (28) 325 Total Fraternity members reported at CSU Fresno • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities 9 out of 11 Fraternities Alpha Gamma Rho, 5262 N. 6th, Fresno, CA 93710 Alpha Sigma Phi, 2127 E. Shaw, Fresno, CA 93710 Delta Sigma Phi, 5209 N. Millbrook, Fresno, CA 93710 Kappa Sigma, 5543 N. 7th, Fresno, CA 93710 Lambda Chi Alpha, 5259 N. Millbrook, Fresno, CA 93710 Phi Delta Theta, 5327 N. Millbrook, Fresno, CA 93710 Pi Kappa Alpha, 1455 E. Joyal Court, Fresno, CA 93710 Sigma Alpha Epsilon, 1469 E. Joyal Court, Fresno, CA 93710 Sigma Chi, 1456 E. Bulldog Lane, Fresno, CA 93710 Sigma Nu (No Chapter House) Sigma Phi Epsilon (No Chapter House) • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? YES, addresses for off-campus events were reported on CSU Fresno’s AB 524 Report, or the location description identifies the event, such as “Theta House”. The CSU template was not used for the report but the addresses for events are included in spreadsheet. Click on link and scroll to right to find events and addresses for events. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQCxQgWrMJ0z_zXiGMVST8rxfsh9FqkXOLucQph- tdXDIwWbz4riAmqLnMvdD6f9d-6BgM2svrlsviu/pubhtml?gid=1778896073&single=true 7. Fullerton: a. 3 Sororities Omega Psi Phi, Kappa Alpha Psi, Zeta Phi Beta b. 3 Fraternities Sigma Nu, Sigma Pi, Tau Kappa Epsilon 111 Total Fraternity members reported at CSU Fullerton • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Frataternities – Zero • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? NO, CSU Fullerton did not understand the requirements of the legislation and did not use the template spreadsheet provided by the CSU system. They reported generically, as “events such as” with no location, date or time. https://www.fullerton.edu/sll/fsl-life/Final_AB524.pdf This is what the CSU template for Sanctioned Events looks like and they did not follow the format. 8. Humboldt: a. 1 Sorority Delta Phi Epsilon b. 1 Fraternities Kappa Sigma 19 Total Fraternity members at CSU Humboldt • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities - Zero • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? YES, Addresses for events were reported on CSU Humboldt’s AB 524 Report https://www.humboldt.edu/sites/default/files/clubs/2024- 08/calpolyhumboldtcampusrecognizedsororityandfraternitytransparencyact22-23.pdf 9. Long Beach: a. 8 Sororities: Alpha Omicron Pi, Alpha Phi, Delta Delta Delta, Delta Gamma, Delta Zeta, Gamma Phi Beta, Sigma Kappa, Zeta Tau Alpha b. 10 Fraternities: Delta Chi (68), Kappa Sigma (56), Phi Kappa Tau (68), Pi Kappa Alpha (40), Pi Kappa Phi (49), Sigma Alpha Epsilon (7), Sigma Chi (31), Sigma Pi (53), Tau Kappa Epsilon (18), Theta Chi (50) 440 Total IFC Fraternity members at CSU Long Beach • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities 5 out of 10 Fraternities • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? NO, the date, time and addresses for all on and off-campus events were not reported on CSU Long Beach’s AB 524 Report. https://www.csulb.edu/student-affairs/fraternities-and-sororities/transparency-act-ab-524-0 10. Los Angeles: a. 3 Sororities: Alpha Sigma Tau, Delta Phi Epsilon, Delta Zeta b. 2 Fraternities: Sigma Alpha Epsilon (10), Sigma Nu (23) 33 Total Fraternity members at CSU Los Angeles • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities 1 out of 2 Fraternities Sigma Nu. 2611 W. Ramona, Alhambra, CA 91803 • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? YES, addresses for events were reported on CSU Los Angeles’s AB 524 Report. https://www.calstatelausu.org/departments/csi/fsl/ab-524-report.pdf https://ucb8c521b473f7decd5e447052c2.dl.dropboxusercontent.com/cd/0/inline2/Cxiztd6kNl5OJDTDJyNQJOnT6X9utt8 6prNQmMFyXb0XKw4SaJjUvayHjJ4M13HWf7pGvgmSHtJeMAYh04PqcJU0KpkrNzcmxJxUOfOmPwNxNZyQA1tP8ZLkXfCBq gsouPTca9heP_zBgYP9Aj01BSXYJe-CZo1Mjjvo-padgX8r_WTaYs47YOzP6YGVQhgrz1kgf6EPzQBgiTodHXny- l69QZxQPlMEL_FGlcO5DcOKSnjE2VSGd7rVbvs_p_muGOZz8SCcbW0A28dWM0XmVqKAxAe6cTgaIMuNuhmrV9yck0lAbp7 Dkc-bE2Qrqg26Yhzg-sGkbJqA-krdSnqbGRnI1jf5Uzpob16RlnIhs83uxAV62yfd9Z4z_qvrMtD5c2g/file 11. Maritime: CSU Maritime does not have Fraternities (Interfraternity Council) or Sororities (Panhellenic Conference) 12. Monterey Bay: a. 3 Sororities: Alpha Kappa Alpha, Kappa Delta Chi, Theta Alpha Sigma, b. 1 IFC Fraternities: Alpha Sigma Phi (5), 5 Fraternity members at CSU Monterey • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities - Zero • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? YES, Addresses for events were reported on CSU Monterey ’s AB 524 Report https://csumb.edu/media/csumb/section-editors/student-engagement-and-leadership-development/greek-life/Campus- Recognized-Sorority-and-Fraternity-Transparency-Act-CSUMB-2023-24.docx.pdf Kappa Sigma in 2022-2023 – NO LONGER AFFILIATED 13. Cal State Northridge: a. 13 Sororities: Alpha Pi, Alpha Xi Delta, Delta Delta Delta, Delta Zeta, Kappa Kappa Gamma, Phi Mu, Sigma Alpha Epsilon Pi, Alpha Phi Alpha, Alpha Kappa Alpha, Kappa Alpha Psi, Phi Beta Sigma, Zeta Phi Beta, Sigma Gamma Rho b. 12 Fraternities: Alpha Epsilon Pi (77), Beta Gamma Nu (54), Zeta Beta Tau (112), Kappa Sigma (138), Lambda Chi Alpha (101), Pi Kappa Alpha (51), Sigma Alpha Epsilon (23), Sigma Phi Epsilon (21), Tau Omega Rho (23), Phi Delta Theta (111), Phi Kappa Psi (44), Phi Sigma Kappa (24) 779 Total Fraternity members at CSU Northridge • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for 4 Fraternities out of 12 Fraternities Lambda Chi alpha, 9963 Lindley Ave, Northridge, CA 91325 Phi Delta Theta, 17740 Halsted Street, Northridge, CA 91325 Phi Kappa Psi, 18116 Nordhoff St, Northridge, CA 91325 Phi Sigma Kappa, 18212 Nordhoff St, Northridge, CA 91325 • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? YES, Addresses for events were reported on CSU Northridge’s AB 524 Report https://www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/csun_ab524_report_22_to_23_academic_year.pdf 14. Pomona: a. 5 Sororities: (NPC) Alpha Xi Delta, Chi Omega, Kappa Delta, Sigma Kappa, Zeta Tau Alpha b. 7 Fraternities: (IFC) Phi Kappa Tau (27), Pi Kappa Alpha (47), Pi Kappa Phi (49), Sigma Chi (40), Sigma Phi Epsilon (49), Sigma Alpha Epsilon (26), Tau Kappa Epsilon (20) 258 Fraternity members at CSU Pomona • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for 3 Fraternities out of 7 Fraternities Phi Kappa Tau, 300 West Center St., Pomona, CA 91768 Sigma Alpha Epsilon, 351 N Main St., Pomona, CA 91768 Sigma Chi, 159 E Holt Ave., Pomona, CA 91768 • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? NO, only on-campus events were reported on CSU Pomona’s AB 524 Report except when “misconduct” was reported at an off-campus event, and the address was provided. CSU Pomona’s Report does not list any of the dates, times and locations for ‘sanctioned events’ off campus. https://www.cpp.edu/sels/for-students/frat-soro-content/transparency-act-report.shtml 15. Sacramento: a. 7 Sororities: Alpha Chi Omega, Alpha Phi, Delta Gamma, Gamma Phi Beta, Phi Mu, Phi Sigma Sigma, Sigma Kappa b. 5 Fraternities: Kappa Sigma (79), Pi Kappa Phi (35), Sigma Alpha Epsilon (42), Sigma Phi Epsilon (21), Tau Kappa Epsilon (55) 232 Total Fraternity members at CSU Sacramento • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities – Zero • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? YES, Fraternities reported addresses for events on CSU Sacramento’s AB 524 Report. https://www.csus.edu/student-life/student-organizations/fraternity-sorority-life/_internal/_documents/reports/campus- recognized-sorority-and-fraternity-transparency-act-ab-524.pdf 16. San Bernadino: a. 4 Sororities (Alpha Delta Pi, Alpha Phi, Kappa Delta, Zeta Tau Alpha) b. 5 Fraternities (Delta Sigma Phi (14), Kappa Sigma (37), Pi Kappa Alpha (19), Sigma Nu (5), Sigma Phi Epsilon (17)) 92 IFC Fraternity members at CSU San Bernadino • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities – Zero • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? YES: All addresses were for off-campus events were on report. https://www.csusb.edu/sites/default/files/2022- 2023%20Campus%20Recognized%20Sorority%20and%20Fraternity%20Transparency%20Act.pdf 17. San Diego: a. 8 Sororities: Alpha Chi Omega, Alpha Gamma Delta, Alpha Phi, Delta Gamma, Gamma Phi Beta, Kappa Alpha Theta, Kappa Delta, Pi Beta Phi b. 14 Fraternities: Alpha Epsilon Pi (106), Beta Theta Pi (31), Delta Chi (111), Delta Upsilon (173), Kappa Alpha (158), Phi Delta Theta (173), Phi Kappa Psi (116), Pi Kappa Alpha (233), Sigma Alpha Epsilon (162). Sigma Chi (148), Sigma Phi Epsilon (16), Tau Kappa Epsilon (171), Zeta Beta Tau (126) 1,381 IFC Fraternity members at CSU San Diego • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities – 12 Chapter Houses out of 14 Fraternities • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? PARTIALLY: Many events were held on campus, and off campus events listed the location, such as Luxor Hotel or Pacific Beach (Beach Cleanup) Most addresses are provided for off-campus events and most were at the main chapter house. Of 14 fraternities in the IFC, 12 have main chapter houses and events were held there. https://sacd.sdsu.edu/student-life-leadership/files-folder/20230927-ab-524-report-sdsu.pdf Sigma Alpha Epsilon: 18. San Francisco: There are several Greek life organizations listed with very small memberships, and it’s not possible to tell if they are associated with the Panhellenic Conference, the IFC, or multi-cultural Greek organizations, as several different ones are listed. There is not a large Greek Life at CSUSF and it is not comparable to Cal Poly’s active IFC chapters. ? (Nominal) Fraternity members at CSU San Francisco • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities – Zero • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? Like CSU Fullerton, there was a misunderstanding of the requirements under AB 524. CSUS prepared Powerpoint slides such as the one shown below without any information, which is not consistent with the requirements of AB 524. Here is an example of the “events” report by a fraternity, Kappa Sigma: Here is an example by Alpha Sigma Phi: Phi Kappa Tau fraternity posted a photo of their calendar without any other information: https://activities.sfsu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Campus%20Recognized%20Sorority%20and%20Fraternity%20Tr ansparency%20Act%20_%20SF%20State%20_%20PT.%201.pdf Events: https://activities.sfsu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/AB-524%202022-2023%20Snapshot%20Bill.pdf 19. San Jose: a. 5 Sororities: Alpha Omicron Pi, Alpha Phi, Alpha Xi Delta, Delta Gamma, Delta Zeta, Kappa Delta b. 9 Fraternities: Beta Theta Pi (40), Delta Sigma Phi (86), Delta Upsilon (65), Kappa Sigma (30), Pi Kappa Phi (41), Sigma Alpha Epsilon (32), Sigma Chi (49), Sigma Nu (non recognized), Theta Chi (60) 403 IFC Fraternity members at CSU San Jose • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities – Beta Theta Pi 365 East San Fernando Street, San Jose, CA 95112 Delta Sigma Phi 189 South 11th Street, San Jose, CA 95112 Delta Upsilon 201 South 11th Street, San Jose, CA 95112 Kappa Sigma 168 South 11th Street, San Jose, CA 95112 Sigma Alpha Epsilon 182 South 10th Street, San Jose, CA 95112 Sigma Chi 284 South 10th Street, San Jose, CA 95112 Sigma Nu 225 South 11th Street, San Jose, CA 95112 Theta Chi 123 South 11th Street, San Jose, CA 95112 • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? Yes . https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eQIX7GUbE520mhC0WQ_XCXvg8iKp2rUbISEERz-1Z9s/edit 20. San Luis Obispo: a. 9 Sororities: Alpha Chi Omega, Alpha Omicron Pi, Alpha Phi, Chi Omega, Delta Gamma, Gamma Phi Beta, Kappa Alpha Theta, Kappa Kappa Gamma, Sigma Kappa b. 19 Fraternities: Alpha Gamma Rho (not recognized), Alpha Epsilon Pi (92), Alpha Sigma Phi (64), Beta Theta Pi (137), Delta Chi (121), Delta Sigma Phi (42), Delta Upsilon(124), Kappa Sigma (143), Lambda Chi Alpha (108), Phi Delta Theta (63), Phi Gamma Delta (46), Phi Kappa Psi (62), Phi Sigma Kappa (91), Pi Kappa Phi (81), Sigma Nu (123), Sigma Phi Epsilon (27), Sigma Pi (129), Theta Chi (121), Zeta Beta Tau (120) 1,694 IFC Fraternity members at Cal Poly, SLO https://content-calpoly-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/greeklife/1/images/24- 25%20Campus%20Recognized%20Sorority%20and%20Fraternity%20Transparency%20Act.pdf • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities – 6 listed in report out of 18 Fraternities (The others are sororities) • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? No. The following events are off-campus events mostly held in residential neighborhoods (not all fraternities are included below): 21. San Marcos: a. 5 Sororities: b. 4 Fraternities: Alpha Sigma Phi (37), Kappa Sigma (76), Sigma Alpha Epsilon (76), Sigma Chi (57) 246 IFC Fraternity members at CSU San Marcos • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities – Zero NO, San Marcos did not publish of addresses for the small number of off campus events. There are only 246 IFC fraternity members compared to about 1,700 IFC fraternity members at Cal Poly, SLO, which has a much more severe impact on the residential neighborhoods where the fraternity members regularly hold fraternity-related events. 22. Sonoma State: a. 6 Sororities: Alpha Delta Pi, Alpha Xi Delta, Alpha Omicron Pi, Gamma Phi Beta, Phi Sigma Sigma b. 6 Fraternities: Alpha Epsilon Pi, Alpha Sigma Phi, Nu Alpha Kappa, Pi Kappa Phi, Phi Delta Theta 193 Fraternity members at CSU Sonoma State • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities – Zero • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? Yes, addresses for off-campus events at homes are listed. Off-campus events at business, such as In and Out, list the business and the address can be inferred. Most events were on campus. There are only 193 fraternity members so very few events. https://getinvolved.sonoma.edu/sites/getinvolved/files/87969560_campus_recognized_sorority_and_fraternity_tra nsparency_act_.pdf 6 Stanislaus State: a. 3 Sororities: Alpha Xi Delta, Phi Mu, Phi Sigma Sigma b. 3 Fraternities: Alpha Sigma Phi, Kappa Sigma, Theta Chi 62 Fraternity members at CSU Stanislaus • “Affiliated Chapter Houses” for Fraternities – Zero • Did the University report the address locations for their sanctioned events in its AB 524 Report? Yes , addresses are listed. Only 62 fraternity members total and events were held at the same location (on campus?) 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Wednesday, September 17, 2025 8:49 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: All CSU's AB524 Reports Thanks Kathie. Just a clarifying question…do the “yes’s” and “no’s” indicate campuses with Greek rows? Thanks again. From: kathie walker < Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 10:08 AM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Bulbul Rajagopal <brajagopal@newtimesslo.com>; Foreman, Dylan <dylan.foreman@ksby.com> Cc: RQN of SLO <rqn.board@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: All CSU's AB524 Reports Correction: I put the report together quickly. Fresno actually has 325 members. A large factor to consider is where the events are held. San Luis Obispo's fraternities have over 50 houses in the neighborhoods and that is not true with any other CSU. The UC system is more organized with Greek Rows, although some UCs don't have a large presence of Greek Life. One of our sons was in a fraternity at UCLA and lived in the fraternity house, which was on a Greek Row. It was organized. Our other son attends UCI and Greek Life is almost non-existent. UCI a completely different culture that works for him. Another family member attended Berkeley where there is a defined Greek Row and it is organized. Cal Poly has a lot of land and can accommodate a Greek Row, which would free up housing in the City and also lessen the impact of large fraternity events on those who live in the neighborhood. There are over 50 fraternity houses documented by the AB 524 report and Code Enforcement in the neighborhoods. If all of those fraternity members could live on campus in a Greek row, that would free up a lot of housing. Please continue to advocate for Cal Poly to build fraternity houses on campus. Bakersfield, 45, Yes Channel Islands, 67, Yes Chico, 264, Yes Dominguez Hills, 66, Yes East Bay, 53, Yes Fresno, 325, Yes Fullerton, 111, No (The format is incorrect and they did not seem to understand the report) Humboldt, 19, Yes Long Beach, 440, No Los Angeles, 33, Yes Maritime, 0 Monterey Bay, 5, Yes Northridge, 779, Yes 2 Pomona, 258, No Sacramento, 232, Yes San Diego, 1,381, Yes San Francisco, ? (nominal) The format is incorrect and unclear if there are IFC fraternities San Luis Obispo, 1,694, No (addresses were erased from the 10/1/2023 report after Cal Poly was contacted by City Code Enforcement) San Marcos, 246, No Sonoma, 193, Yes Stanislaus, 62, Yes On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 9:32 AM kathie walker < wrote: Michelle Shoresman requested links to some AB 524 reports for other campuses to see whether they have included the addresses for fraternity events. I thought it would be good to share the information with all of you. The report is attached with the links for each of the CSU Report. I realize that even if this information is presented to Courtney Kienow, Maren Hufton (attorney for Cal Poly) or other legal counsel, or event Jeff Armstrong, it is not going to change anything. They do not want to disclose the addresses. Maybe they do now believe they are following the terms of AB 524, even after they initially published the addresses on 10/1/2023 and erased them on 7/1/2024. For the sake of the argument, let's say they don't have a legal requirement to publish the addresses in the AB 524 reports. That still does not absolve them of the responsibility to turn over the addresses to the city and the public according to the California Public Records Act. That is the key to solving this issue since they won't voluntarily turn over the addresses is to file a writ and a judge will order them to release the information. The information is not protected by the CPRA under privacy or any other exemption. I prepared a writ of mandate and sent it to you last year. I'm not a lawyer but I am a paralegal from a law school accredited by the ABA, although it has been a long time since I've practiced. Still, the document has a lot of relevant case law. Once the addresses are disclosed, the city can continue to ask for updated the addresses. Then, you can hold the property owners responsible. The fraternities don't own these properties. They are rental homes in our neighborhood that were converted to Main Chapter Houses and satellite houses for fraternities. (The City does not make any legal distinction between them; they are all considered "fraternities" if fraternity members live there and hold fraternity-related events.) The property owners have already received notices from the City and know they are violating the law by allowing fraternity events to be held on their properties. It is lucrative for the property owners to rent the properties to fraternities. I want to address one other thing that was brought up by Erica Stewart at the Council meeting last night. There seems to be some misunderstanding about residents having a problem with students living together who aren't hosting fraternity events. I thought clearly addressed this issue but somehow the message isn't being received: The groups of fraternity guys who live together and don't host events are not considered "fraternities" by the City's laws and they are not the problem The list of addresses provided to you have hosted documented fraternity-related events, in violation of the law. They continue to operate illegally as fraternity houses. The matter is not about civil rights or who can occupy a house. It's about the Cal Poly "fraternities" defined by the City's laws. Unfortunately, the City has not shut down a single illegal fraternity house even though they were listed in Cal Poly's AB 524 report and continue to operate today. 3 I look forward to working together to solve this issue and bring peace back to our neighborhood for ALL who live there, including students, professionals, retirees, etc. Thank you, Kathie Walker Here is each of the CSU campuses, with the number of IFC fraternity members and whether or not they disclosed the addresses of fraternity related events. Please note that San Diego has a student population at least 50% higher than Cal Poly, is a larger city than SLO, and less fraternity members. Also, they have listed the addresses of their fraternity houses while Cal Poly has only listed 6 of 19 current fraternities operating. Bakersfield, 45, Yes Channel Islands, 67, Yes Chico, 264, Yes Dominguez Hills, 66, Yes East Bay, 53, Yes Fresno, 32, Yes Fullerton, 111, No (The format is incorrect and they did not seem to understand the report) Humboldt, 19, Yes Long Beach, 440, No Los Angeles, 33, Yes Maritime, 0 Monterey Bay, 5, Yes Northridge, 779, Yes Pomona, 258, No Sacramento, 232, Yes San Diego, 1,381, Yes San Francisco, ? (nominal) The format is incorrect and unclear if there are IFC fraternities San Luis Obispo, 1,694, No (addresses were erased from the 10/1/2023 report after Cal Poly was contacted by City Code Enforcement) San Marcos, 246, No Sonoma, 193, Yes Stanislaus, 62, Yes 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Wednesday, September 17, 2025 10:08 AM To:Shoresman, Michelle; Francis, Emily; Stewart, Erica A; Marx, Jan; Boswell, Mike; Bulbul Rajagopal; Foreman, Dylan Cc:RQN of SLO Subject:Re: All CSU's AB524 Reports Correction: I put the report together quickly. Fresno actually has 325 members. A large factor to consider is where the events are held. San Luis Obispo's fraternities have over 50 houses in the neighborhoods and that is not true with any other CSU. The UC system is more organized with Greek Rows, although some UCs don't have a large presence of Greek Life. One of our sons was in a fraternity at UCLA and lived in the fraternity house, which was on a Greek Row. It was organized. Our other son attends UCI and Greek Life is almost non-existent. UCI a completely different culture that works for him. Another family member attended Berkeley where there is a defined Greek Row and it is organized. Cal Poly has a lot of land and can accommodate a Greek Row, which would free up housing in the City and also lessen the impact of large fraternity events on those who live in the neighborhood. There are over 50 fraternity houses documented by the AB 524 report and Code Enforcement in the neighborhoods. If all of those fraternity members could live on campus in a Greek row, that would free up a lot of housing. Please continue to advocate for Cal Poly to build fraternity houses on campus. Bakersfield, 45, Yes Channel Islands, 67, Yes Chico, 264, Yes Dominguez Hills, 66, Yes East Bay, 53, Yes Fresno, 325, Yes Fullerton, 111, No (The format is incorrect and they did not seem to understand the report) Humboldt, 19, Yes Long Beach, 440, No Los Angeles, 33, Yes Maritime, 0 Monterey Bay, 5, Yes Northridge, 779, Yes Pomona, 258, No Sacramento, 232, Yes San Diego, 1,381, Yes San Francisco, ? (nominal) The format is incorrect and unclear if there are IFC fraternities San Luis Obispo, 1,694, No (addresses were erased from the 10/1/2023 report after Cal Poly was contacted by City Code Enforcement) San Marcos, 246, No Sonoma, 193, Yes Stanislaus, 62, Yes On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 9:32 AM kathie walker < wrote: 2 Michelle Shoresman requested links to some AB 524 reports for other campuses to see whether they have included the addresses for fraternity events. I thought it would be good to share the information with all of you. The report is attached with the links for each of the CSU Report. I realize that even if this information is presented to Courtney Kienow, Maren Hufton (attorney for Cal Poly) or other legal counsel, or event Jeff Armstrong, it is not going to change anything. They do not want to disclose the addresses. Maybe they do now believe they are following the terms of AB 524, even after they initially published the addresses on 10/1/2023 and erased them on 7/1/2024. For the sake of the argument, let's say they don't have a legal requirement to publish the addresses in the AB 524 reports. That still does not absolve them of the responsibility to turn over the addresses to the city and the public according to the California Public Records Act. That is the key to solving this issue since they won't voluntarily turn over the addresses is to file a writ and a judge will order them to release the information. The information is not protected by the CPRA under privacy or any other exemption. I prepared a writ of mandate and sent it to you last year. I'm not a lawyer but I am a paralegal from a law school accredited by the ABA, although it has been a long time since I've practiced. Still, the document has a lot of relevant case law. Once the addresses are disclosed, the city can continue to ask for updated the addresses. Then, you can hold the property owners responsible. The fraternities don't own these properties. They are rental homes in our neighborhood that were converted to Main Chapter Houses and satellite houses for fraternities. (The City does not make any legal distinction between them; they are all considered "fraternities" if fraternity members live there and hold fraternity-related events.) The property owners have already received notices from the City and know they are violating the law by allowing fraternity events to be held on their properties. It is lucrative for the property owners to rent the properties to fraternities. I want to address one other thing that was brought up by Erica Stewart at the Council meeting last night. There seems to be some misunderstanding about residents having a problem with students living together who aren't hosting fraternity events. I thought clearly addressed this issue but somehow the message isn't being received: The groups of fraternity guys who live together and don't host events are not considered "fraternities" by the City's laws and they are not the problem The list of addresses provided to you have hosted documented fraternity-related events, in violation of the law. They continue to operate illegally as fraternity houses. The matter is not about civil rights or who can occupy a house. It's about the Cal Poly "fraternities" defined by the City's laws. Unfortunately, the City has not shut down a single illegal fraternity house even though they were listed in Cal Poly's AB 524 report and continue to operate today. I look forward to working together to solve this issue and bring peace back to our neighborhood for ALL who live there, including students, professionals, retirees, etc. Thank you, Kathie Walker Here is each of the CSU campuses, with the number of IFC fraternity members and whether or not they disclosed the addresses of fraternity related events. Please note that San Diego has a student population at least 50% higher than Cal Poly, is a larger city than SLO, and less fraternity members. Also, they have listed the addresses of their fraternity houses while Cal Poly has only listed 6 of 19 current fraternities operating. 3 Bakersfield, 45, Yes Channel Islands, 67, Yes Chico, 264, Yes Dominguez Hills, 66, Yes East Bay, 53, Yes Fresno, 32, Yes Fullerton, 111, No (The format is incorrect and they did not seem to understand the report) Humboldt, 19, Yes Long Beach, 440, No Los Angeles, 33, Yes Maritime, 0 Monterey Bay, 5, Yes Northridge, 779, Yes Pomona, 258, No Sacramento, 232, Yes San Diego, 1,381, Yes San Francisco, ? (nominal) The format is incorrect and unclear if there are IFC fraternities San Luis Obispo, 1,694, No (addresses were erased from the 10/1/2023 report after Cal Poly was contacted by City Code Enforcement) San Marcos, 246, No Sonoma, 193, Yes Stanislaus, 62, Yes 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Thursday, October 2, 2025 10:45 AM To:Mezzapesa, John Subject:Re: Communicating with SLOPD No coincidence, the guy who got the DAC, Henry Hagel, is the rush chair for Sigma Nu according to an Instagram post. On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 10:41 AM kathie walker < wrote: Hi John, Is Code Enforcement communicating addresses that were identified as illegal fraternity operations to SLOPD? Rush events are continuing this week. We're not there this week but neighbors have said it has been loud with parties and fireworks at night. Last night there were several parties including a huge party at 290 Chaplin, which is a Sigma Nu fraternity house that held a rush event last Sunday. SNAP gave them a DAC last night: 2 Are the addresses you've identified as illegal fraternity operations passed on to SLOPD? Thank you, Kathie 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Thursday, October 2, 2025 10:42 AM To:Mezzapesa, John Subject:Communicating with SLOPD Hi John, Is Code Enforcement communicating addresses that were identified as illegal fraternity operations to SLOPD? Rush events are continuing this week. We're not there this week but neighbors have said it has been loud with parties and fireworks at night. Last night there were several parties including a huge party at 290 Chaplin, which is a Sigma Nu fraternity house that held a rush event last Sunday. SNAP gave them a DAC last night: Are the addresses you've identified as illegal fraternity operations passed on to SLOPD? Thank you, Kathie 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Friday, October 3, 2025 12:03 PM To:Tuggle, Todd Cc:McDonald, Whitney; Scott, Rick Subject:Re: Fireworks at 2351 Helena twice in last two weeks Thank you, Chief Tuggle. I've spoken with several of my neighbors, including the former principal at SLOHS, Will Jones, who knows the young man responsible for lighting the fireworks. Will went over to speak with Nick, and Nick admitted he lit them off and promised to not do it again. Otherwise, Will and some other neighbors are going to contact his parents who own the house. So we may have resolved the problem at this point. The fireworks on 10/2 sounded like pops (almost like gunshots) at first, which woke us, followed by multiple fireworks shot into the air which also made noise. There were probably 10 loud pops. I didn't call SLOPD because I was woken from a deep sleep and didn't want to make the effort when I knew it was futile, after the fact. Our previous experience in the Cal Poly neighborhood was that they needed to witness the person lighting them to cite them. I even had video of a neighbor lighting them but SLOPD officers that arrived said they needed to see it with their own eyes. The fireworks from 2351 Helena were lit in the backyard of the property, so not visible to SLOPD. The fireworks on 9/16 were more concentrated but I was awake when they were lit off and had a clear view of them from our large bedroom window. Our house is on a hill (shown below) and overlooks the area so we could see where the fireworks were coming from. Thank you for your help. Thankfully, most of our neighbors know one another and have common connections, so we were able to figure it out and speak with the person responsible. 2 On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 11:30 AM Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org> wrote: Good morning Ms. Walker, Thank you for reaching out and I am sorry for the interruption of your lives from fireworks. Fireworks, of any kind, are illegal in SLO and for good reason. As you mentioned, they represent a serious fire risk, especially this time of year when the vegetation is especially dry and shake shingle roofs are extra prone to the embers falling from fireworks and burning vegetation secondary to fireworks. We appreciate your concern and are checking our response logs to determine the nature of the incidents. It’s important that 911, or the non-emergency line (805)781-7312, is called so that Fire and/ or PD can respond to investigate the situation and log it accordingly in our Records Management Systems (RMS). Once we have the information, you will receive a response from Fire about the status of the incidents you mentioned. Please give us approximately two weeks to track down the information. Thank you and have a fantastic day. Todd Tuggle Fire Chief City of San Luis Obispo 805 858-0435 From: kathie walker < Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 7:25:00 PM 3 To: Tuggle, Todd <ttuggle@slocity.org> Subject: Fireworks at 2351 Helena twice in last two weeks Good evening Chief Tuggle, My husband is an EMS helicopter pilot who is currently based at Paso Robles but is transferring to REACH in Santa Maria at the end of this month. He needs to be able to sleep between his shifts because he must be rested to fly his patients and med crew. We recently made a difficult decision to leave our longtime home in the Cal Poly neighborhood because of the non-stop noise from fireworks and fraternity parties that surrounded our property, which made it impossible to rest and sleep. We bought a home near Sinsheimer Park and moved here a month ago. Unfortunately, within the past couple of weeks there have been two incidents with large-scale fireworks - they kind that shoot up into the air and explode into colorful patterns - that were set off by the occupant at 2351 Helena Street. Our house sits above Helena and we can see the fireworks from our bedroom window. It has been confirmed by multiple neighbors that the fireworks came from 2351 Helena Street and the occupant, Nick Eaton, who is the son of the home owners. His parents no longer live there. The first incident was on 9/16/2025 at around 10 p.m and the second time was last night, 10/2/2025 at around midnight. It is distressing to be woken by fireworks and also extremely concerning because of the proximity to flammable roofs and the open space, Terrace Hill. Would you please speak with Mr. Eaton and let him know the serious dangers of fireworks, and ask that he stop lighting them off? I appreciate you being proactive about the situation. Thank you for your time. -Kathie Walker 2 Kathie On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 9:52 AM kathie walker < wrote: Hi John,     1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Monday, October 6, 2025 6:55 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Cal Poly Fraternities and Being Targeted Thank you, Michelle. On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 2:21 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: I’m so glad that you are finding peace. I’m sorry that the negative behavior toward you has continued. I know that a lot of productive enforcement happened at the start of the school year, as well as lots of education with the students about appropriate behavior in neighborhoods. More work continues, as well. I am sharing this with the police chief and city manager since the police chief was not included on your original email. We will keep working on this. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 2:02 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Cal Poly Fraternities and Being Targeted It has been an enormous relief to finally be free from the constant noise and disruption caused by fraternity parties at illegal fraternity houses throughout our former neighborhood which increased exponentially beginning in Fall 2021. We are grateful that some wonderful tenants have leased our house on Fredericks Street. Unfortunately, one of them recently had their windshield broken. This incident is concerning and appears consistent with the pattern of targeted harassment that was directed at me after I began raising concerns about this ongoing problem with the City. At one point, I no longer felt safe in my own home. Meaningful progress could have been achieved if:  SLOPD had consistently enforced the noise ordinance from the time I first brought the issue of lack of enforcement to their attention, supported by videos, in Fall 2021.  The City had acted promptly to shut down illegal fraternity houses after their addresses were confirmed in Cal Poly’s AB 524 report in 2023. All of the main chapter houses continue to operate illegally today!  Code Enforcement and SLOPD had improved communication regarding the identified illegal fraternity operations so that enforcement of noise complaints could be properly addressed by SLOPD at confirmed fraternity operations rather than relying on SNAP. 2  SLOPD had taken my cyberstalking complaint seriously. The lack of investigation effectively signaled to fraternity members that harassment was acceptable. Despite my repeated efforts, little progress has been made toward shutting down illegal fraternity houses throughout the neighborhoods. I have continually tried to get the problem addressed and as a result, I have continued to be a target of harassment by fraternity members or those affiliated with Greek life at Cal Poly. Over the past week, several posts about me have appeared on Cal Poly’s YikYak platform. Although I have reported the posts, they remain online. One mocked the fact that Sigma Pi used my name to open porn accounts in 2023, calling Sigma Pi “kings” for harassing me. Another blamed “the police and Kathy Walker” for shutting down fraternity parties early. This morning I saw a post: Our new house is 2.2 miles away from our former house, and we have been careful to keep our new address private. Even our current tenants do not have it. I have not visited our old neighborhood in over a week and have never been back at night. The peace and quiet of the Sinsheimer neighborhood has been a welcome change, allowing us to sleep on weekends instead of tracking down the sources of loud parties which were primarily at fraternity houses. Before I began speaking publicly about the fraternity issue, some of my longtime neighbors had already been targeted and were frightened into silence. Some still live in the neighborhood and others moved away. One former neighbor had their cat killed and placed on their porch and their motorcycle was vandalized after complaining to a fraternity landlord who then terminated the fraternity’s lease. During that same time, another 3 neighbor who had complained to the same landlord had their car windows were smashed and the side mirrors ripped off. They still live in Alta Vista today. It is hard to convey the fear caused by targeted harassment. In our former home, I stopped sleeping in the front bedroom and moved to a back guest room out of fear that someone might throw something through the window. It is sickening to know that I am still being targeted and that someone has discovered where I now live. Nevertheless, I remain committed to working toward a solution for our former neighborhood. This problem has been allowed to escalate and I feel an obligation to help ensure it is addressed, not just for my former neighbors but for all residents of our city’s neighborhoods. It is spreading to neighborhoods further from campus. For example, Theta Chi has a fraternity house where events are held at 330 & 334 Foothill and 340 Foothill. Their neighbors have been complaining about the noise and calling SLOPD. They probably don't even know that fraternities are not legal in single family neighborhoods and have not reported it to Code Enforcement. But the house is shown on Theta Chi's Instagram and SLOPD noise logs show the increase in noise complaints. Steve and I have found peace in our new neighborhood, and we are fortunate to have connected with many wonderful new neighbors who share our sense of community. Living in San Luis Obispo is a reminder of how interconnected we all are and how important it is for each of us to speak up and look out for one another. I hope you, as our City leaders and elected representatives, will feel the same sense of responsibility toward the residents of this city. Please solve this problem so that residents don't have to be vocal, which has proven to make them targets of fraternity members. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Monday, October 6, 2025 2:21 PM To:kathie walker; Scott, Rick; McDonald, Whitney Subject:Re: Cal Poly Fraternities and Being Targeted I’m so glad that you are finding peace. I’m sorry that the negative behavior toward you has continued. I know that a lot of productive enforcement happened at the start of the school year, as well as lots of education with the students about appropriate behavior in neighborhoods. More work continues, as well. I am sharing this with the police chief and city manager since the police chief was not included on your original email. We will keep working on this. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 2:02 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Cal Poly Fraternities and Being Targeted It has been an enormous relief to finally be free from the constant noise and disruption caused by fraternity parties at illegal fraternity houses throughout our former neighborhood which increased exponentially beginning in Fall 2021. We are grateful that some wonderful tenants have leased our house on Fredericks Street. Unfortunately, one of them recently had their windshield broken. This incident is concerning and appears consistent with the pattern of targeted harassment that was directed at me after I began raising concerns about this ongoing problem with the City. At one point, I no longer felt safe in my own home. Meaningful progress could have been achieved if:  SLOPD had consistently enforced the noise ordinance from the time I first brought the issue of lack of enforcement to their attention, supported by videos, in Fall 2021.  The City had acted promptly to shut down illegal fraternity houses after their addresses were confirmed in Cal Poly’s AB 524 report in 2023. All of the main chapter houses continue to operate illegally today!  Code Enforcement and SLOPD had improved communication regarding the identified illegal fraternity operations so that enforcement of noise complaints could be properly addressed by SLOPD at confirmed fraternity operations rather than relying on SNAP.  SLOPD had taken my cyberstalking complaint seriously. The lack of investigation effectively signaled to fraternity members that harassment was acceptable. 2 Despite my repeated efforts, little progress has been made toward shutting down illegal fraternity houses throughout the neighborhoods. I have continually tried to get the problem addressed and as a result, I have continued to be a target of harassment by fraternity members or those affiliated with Greek life at Cal Poly. Over the past week, several posts about me have appeared on Cal Poly’s YikYak platform. Although I have reported the posts, they remain online. One mocked the fact that Sigma Pi used my name to open porn accounts in 2023, calling Sigma Pi “kings” for harassing me. Another blamed “the police and Kathy Walker” for shutting down fraternity parties early. This morning I saw a post: Our new house is 2.2 miles away from our former house, and we have been careful to keep our new address private. Even our current tenants do not have it. I have not visited our old neighborhood in over a week and have never been back at night. The peace and quiet of the Sinsheimer neighborhood has been a welcome change, allowing us to sleep on weekends instead of tracking down the sources of loud parties which were primarily at fraternity houses. Before I began speaking publicly about the fraternity issue, some of my longtime neighbors had already been targeted and were frightened into silence. Some still live in the neighborhood and others moved away. One former neighbor had their cat killed and placed on their porch and their motorcycle was vandalized after complaining to a fraternity landlord who then terminated the fraternity’s lease. During that same time, another neighbor who had complained to the same landlord had their car windows were smashed and the side mirrors ripped off. They still live in Alta Vista today. 3 It is hard to convey the fear caused by targeted harassment. In our former home, I stopped sleeping in the front bedroom and moved to a back guest room out of fear that someone might throw something through the window. It is sickening to know that I am still being targeted and that someone has discovered where I now live. Nevertheless, I remain committed to working toward a solution for our former neighborhood. This problem has been allowed to escalate and I feel an obligation to help ensure it is addressed, not just for my former neighbors but for all residents of our city’s neighborhoods. It is spreading to neighborhoods further from campus. For example, Theta Chi has a fraternity house where events are held at 330 & 334 Foothill and 340 Foothill. Their neighbors have been complaining about the noise and calling SLOPD. They probably don't even know that fraternities are not legal in single family neighborhoods and have not reported it to Code Enforcement. But the house is shown on Theta Chi's Instagram and SLOPD noise logs show the increase in noise complaints. Steve and I have found peace in our new neighborhood, and we are fortunate to have connected with many wonderful new neighbors who share our sense of community. Living in San Luis Obispo is a reminder of how interconnected we all are and how important it is for each of us to speak up and look out for one another. I hope you, as our City leaders and elected representatives, will feel the same sense of responsibility toward the residents of this city. Please solve this problem so that residents don't have to be vocal, which has proven to make them targets of fraternity members. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 2:21 PM To: kathie walker < ; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Cal Poly Fraternities and Being Targeted I’m so glad that you are finding peace. I’m sorry that the negative behavior toward you has continued. I know that a lot of productive enforcement happened at the start of the school year, as well as lots of education with the students about appropriate behavior in neighborhoods. More work continues, as well. 2 I am sharing this with the police chief and city manager since the police chief was not included on your original email. We will keep working on this. Michelle Shoresman Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo From: kathie walker < Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 2:02 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Cal Poly Fraternities and Being Targeted It has been an enormous relief to finally be free from the constant noise and disruption caused by fraternity parties at illegal fraternity houses throughout our former neighborhood which increased exponentially beginning in Fall 2021. We are grateful that some wonderful tenants have leased our house on Fredericks Street. Unfortunately, one of them recently had their windshield broken. This incident is concerning and appears consistent with the pattern of targeted harassment that was directed at me after I began raising concerns about this ongoing problem with the City. At one point, I no longer felt safe in my own home. Meaningful progress could have been achieved if:  SLOPD had consistently enforced the noise ordinance from the time I first brought the issue of lack of enforcement to their attention, supported by videos, in Fall 2021.  The City had acted promptly to shut down illegal fraternity houses after their addresses were confirmed in Cal Poly’s AB 524 report in 2023. All of the main chapter houses continue to operate illegally today!  Code Enforcement and SLOPD had improved communication regarding the identified illegal fraternity operations so that enforcement of noise complaints could be properly addressed by SLOPD at confirmed fraternity operations rather than relying on SNAP.  SLOPD had taken my cyberstalking complaint seriously. The lack of investigation effectively signaled to fraternity members that harassment was acceptable. Despite my repeated efforts, little progress has been made toward shutting down illegal fraternity houses throughout the neighborhoods. I have continually tried to get the problem addressed and as a result, I have continued to be a target of harassment by fraternity members or those affiliated with Greek life at Cal Poly. Over the past week, several posts about me have appeared on Cal Poly’s YikYak platform. Although I have reported the posts, they remain online. One mocked the fact that Sigma Pi used my name to open porn accounts in 2023, calling Sigma Pi “kings” for harassing me. Another blamed “the police and Kathy Walker” for shutting down fraternity parties early. This morning I saw a post: 3 Our new house is 2.2 miles away from our former house, and we have been careful to keep our new address private. Even our current tenants do not have it. I have not visited our old neighborhood in over a week and have never been back at night. The peace and quiet of the Sinsheimer neighborhood has been a welcome change, allowing us to sleep on weekends instead of tracking down the sources of loud parties which were primarily at fraternity houses. Before I began speaking publicly about the fraternity issue, some of my longtime neighbors had already been targeted and were frightened into silence. Some still live in the neighborhood and others moved away. One former neighbor had their cat killed and placed on their porch and their motorcycle was vandalized after complaining to a fraternity landlord who then terminated the fraternity’s lease. During that same time, another neighbor who had complained to the same landlord had their car windows were smashed and the side mirrors ripped off. They still live in Alta Vista today. It is hard to convey the fear caused by targeted harassment. In our former home, I stopped sleeping in the front bedroom and moved to a back guest room out of fear that someone might throw something through the window. It is sickening to know that I am still being targeted and that someone has discovered where I now live. Nevertheless, I remain committed to working toward a solution for our former neighborhood. This problem has been allowed to escalate and I feel an obligation to help ensure it is addressed, not just for my former neighbors but for all residents of our city’s neighborhoods. It is spreading to neighborhoods further from campus. For example, Theta Chi has a fraternity house where events are held at 330 & 334 Foothill and 340 Foothill. Their neighbors have been complaining about the noise and calling SLOPD. They probably don't even know that 4 fraternities are not legal in single family neighborhoods and have not reported it to Code Enforcement. But the house is shown on Theta Chi's Instagram and SLOPD noise logs show the increase in noise complaints. Steve and I have found peace in our new neighborhood, and we are fortunate to have connected with many wonderful new neighbors who share our sense of community. Living in San Luis Obispo is a reminder of how interconnected we all are and how important it is for each of us to speak up and look out for one another. I hope you, as our City leaders and elected representatives, will feel the same sense of responsibility toward the residents of this city. Please solve this problem so that residents don't have to be vocal, which has proven to make them targets of fraternity members. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < Sent:Monday, October 6, 2025 2:02 PM To:E-mail Council Website; Marx, Jan; Francis, Emily; Stewart, Erica A; Boswell, Mike; Shoresman, Michelle; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John; McDonald, Whitney Subject:Cal Poly Fraternities and Being Targeted It has been an enormous relief to finally be free from the constant noise and disruption caused by fraternity parties at illegal fraternity houses throughout our former neighborhood which increased exponentially beginning in Fall 2021. We are grateful that some wonderful tenants have leased our house on Fredericks Street. Unfortunately, one of them recently had their windshield broken. This incident is concerning and appears consistent with the pattern of targeted harassment that was directed at me after I began raising concerns about this ongoing problem with the City. At one point, I no longer felt safe in my own home. Meaningful progress could have been achieved if:  SLOPD had consistently enforced the noise ordinance from the time I first brought the issue of lack of enforcement to their attention, supported by videos, in Fall 2021.  The City had acted promptly to shut down illegal fraternity houses after their addresses were confirmed in Cal Poly’s AB 524 report in 2023. All of the main chapter houses continue to operate illegally today!  Code Enforcement and SLOPD had improved communication regarding the identified illegal fraternity operations so that enforcement of noise complaints could be properly addressed by SLOPD at confirmed fraternity operations rather than relying on SNAP.  SLOPD had taken my cyberstalking complaint seriously. The lack of investigation effectively signaled to fraternity members that harassment was acceptable. Despite my repeated efforts, little progress has been made toward shutting down illegal fraternity houses throughout the neighborhoods. I have continually tried to get the problem addressed and as a result, I have continued to be a target of harassment by fraternity members or those affiliated with Greek life at Cal Poly. Over the past week, several posts about me have appeared on Cal Poly’s YikYak platform. Although I have reported the posts, they remain online. One mocked the fact that Sigma Pi used my name to open porn accounts in 2023, calling Sigma Pi “kings” for harassing me. Another blamed “the police and Kathy Walker” for shutting down fraternity parties early. This morning I saw a post: 2 Our new house is 2.2 miles away from our former house, and we have been careful to keep our new address private. Even our current tenants do not have it. I have not visited our old neighborhood in over a week and have never been back at night. The peace and quiet of the Sinsheimer neighborhood has been a welcome change, allowing us to sleep on weekends instead of tracking down the sources of loud parties which were primarily at fraternity houses. Before I began speaking publicly about the fraternity issue, some of my longtime neighbors had already been targeted and were frightened into silence. Some still live in the neighborhood and others moved away. One former neighbor had their cat killed and placed on their porch and their motorcycle was vandalized after complaining to a fraternity landlord who then terminated the fraternity’s lease. During that same time, another neighbor who had complained to the same landlord had their car windows were smashed and the side mirrors ripped off. They still live in Alta Vista today. It is hard to convey the fear caused by targeted harassment. In our former home, I stopped sleeping in the front bedroom and moved to a back guest room out of fear that someone might throw something through the window. It is sickening to know that I am still being targeted and that someone has discovered where I now live. Nevertheless, I remain committed to working toward a solution for our former neighborhood. This problem has been allowed to escalate and I feel an obligation to help ensure it is addressed, not just for my former neighbors but for all residents of our city’s neighborhoods. It is spreading to neighborhoods further from campus. For example, Theta Chi has a fraternity house where events are held at 330 & 334 Foothill and 340 Foothill. Their neighbors have been complaining about the noise and calling SLOPD. They probably don't even know that 3 fraternities are not legal in single family neighborhoods and have not reported it to Code Enforcement. But the house is shown on Theta Chi's Instagram and SLOPD noise logs show the increase in noise complaints. Steve and I have found peace in our new neighborhood, and we are fortunate to have connected with many wonderful new neighbors who share our sense of community. Living in San Luis Obispo is a reminder of how interconnected we all are and how important it is for each of us to speak up and look out for one another. I hope you, as our City leaders and elected representatives, will feel the same sense of responsibility toward the residents of this city. Please solve this problem so that residents don't have to be vocal, which has proven to make them targets of fraternity members. Sincerely, Kathie Walker 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Thursday, October 9, 2025 2:02 PM To:Mezzapesa, John; Corey, Tyler Subject:Delta Chi Appeal Hi John and Tyler, I am not sure who is handling Delta Chi's appeal to the City Council on October 21st but want to provide the following relevant information: 1. Delta Chi previously appealed a noise citation issued 3/3/2025 and it was dismissed by a Hearing Officer. On June 25, 2025, SLOPD Deputy Chief Brian Amoroso explained to the Planning Commissioners that the Hearing Officer was wrongly dismissing valid noise citations because SLOPD's equipment is not calibrated to accurately record noise and is focused on the officer's conversation with the person in front of them. DC Amoroso said that even a gunshot will sound muffled on an officer's body cam video. I have attached the video clip of DC Amoroso's testimony to the Planning Commission. This problem was apparently explained to the Hearing Officer but I'm not sure how or if it has been resolved. The main point is that the noise citation received by Delta Chi on 3/3/2025 was a valid noise violation but was dismissed because of the way noise is / isn't recorded on SLOPD's body cameras. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. DC Brian Amoroso explains noise violations.mp4 2. Delta Chi had a large party on St. Fratty's Day 2025, even though Cal Poly told all Greek life that they were not allowed to have parties, so the party was not registered per Cal Poly Greek Life Event Registration Policies and Procedures. Delta Chi did not appeal that citation with the City. In previous years, if SLOPD cited a noisy party during St. Fratty's Day, but the persons claimed they were not holding the party and trespassers were responsible for the crowd on their property, the persons who got the citation communicated that information to SLOPD and the citations were dismissed, free of charge. One of my friends owns 306 Hathway and she said that happened to her tenants in 2024 after they received a citation when people overtook their yard and roo ftop. They did not have to pay an appeal fee and SLOPD verified that they did not know any of the people in their yard or on their roof and called 911 multiple times. On St. Fratty's Day 2025, Delta Chi had a party with a banner hanging in the courtyard that said "St. Frattys 2025" "Get Lucky" with Delta Chi's Greek letters. Some people at the party that morning took videos of the event and posted the videos to Snapchat, which caused larger crowds to show up outside the locked gates of the fraternity. The larger crowds outside the fraternity gates do not negate the fact that the fraternity did have a party that morning and there were over 100 guests there BEFORE uninvite d crowds showed up. If Delta Chi didn't have a party, the other uninvited guests would not have gone to the fraternity. No other fraternity had a party that morning. (Sigma Nu planned a St. Fratty's Day party and had a banner painted, but canceled beforehand.) SLOPD's citation was sent to Cal Poly Student Rights and Responsibilities, and the matter was forwarded to the InterFraternity Council Judicial Board for resolution. That is how Cal Poly is now handling citations that are sent to Cal Poly from the City if the noise citation is associated with a fraternity address. The Fraternity Board, made up of fraternity members, found that Delta Chi was not responsible for hosting the event on St. Fratty's Day morning based on a presentation by the fraternity from their video surveillance of the crowds that showed up to 2 the party outside their gates. They glossed over the fact that there was already a party at the fraternity house when those other people showed up. Delta Chi has attempted to use this ruling as a final disposition, as though they did not have a party that morning. But they did have a party and there is video of the party, with over 100 people calmly hanging around the courtyard, dancing, etc. No one is storming the courtyard at that point, and the party is in full swing. That documentation is included in my correspondence to the Planning Commission for the re-review of its CUP on 5/28/2025. Delta Chi also did not appeal the double-fine noise citation to the Hearing Officer or try to have it resolved by contacting SLOPD with their claim that crowds trespassed onto their property and they were not responsible for the party. 3. I have not asked SLOPD for an updated noise history of 1236 Monte Vista and all units within the complex. I saw that Delta Chi received another noise citation last weekend on 10/4/2025, only a few weeks into the academic year and despite the fraternity's upcoming appeal. The citation shows that someone called in a noise complaint at 1:45 a.m. SNAP was dispatched first because "P1" is shown as the responding units. It appears SNAP officers verified the noise and called SLOPD to the property. Officer Sanchez (unit 4215) issued a citation after 2:20 a.m. That means the noise was going on during those early morning hours for over 30 minutes before officers arrived to stop it and finally cleared the call at 2:38 a.m. Also, SLOPD does not count people at events and they do not enter the property. Officers ask the person getting the citation how many people are there, so these numbers are usually much lower than the actual number of people. (e.g. A citation was issued at Delta Upsilon's satellite house at 281 Albert Drive on 5/2/2025 with 50 people listed on the citation when video posted by the fraternity on Instagram show 200-300 people at the live music event in the backyard. SLOPD didn't go into the yard or count people but relied on the person getting the citation to tell him how many people were at the party.) Hopefully, the person handling the appeal has checked with SLOPD for an updated list of all noise complaints for the property, including all units. 4. 1236 Monte Vista was sold a month ago to an attorney named Ira Rosenblatt who practices in Calabasas, CA and lives in Woodland Hills. He formed "SLO Ride 1236 LLC" for the property. I have noticed a trend with some LLCs from outside the area, often in o ther states, owning several fraternity properties in San Luis Obispo, mostly in R1 and R2 zones. I spoke with the property owners who own 281 Hathway and 322 Hathway. They are different owners and not LLCs and neither owner knew that a fraternity was operating at their properties. Kappa Sigma's main chapter house is at 281 Hathway. During our phone conversation the owners of 281 Hathway signed into Instagram and freaked out when they saw the photos and videos of the fraternity events at the house. She kept saying, "oh my 3 god that's our house", "oh my god, look at that", etc. They live in Nevada and commented that they thought it was strange that they never heard any complaints whatsoever for years about the carpet or anything else. I think they're charging about $12,000/month for the house and have not done any maintenance. Easy money which is probably not easy to give up when the alternative is tenants who complain about things, cause expenditures for repairs, and may not be willing to pay as much monthly. You may already know that the property at 1236 Monte Vista was recently sold but I wanted to mention it, and the context that it is an investor from outside the area. If the investor wants to apply for a CUP, maybe different fraternities would have more respect for the neighborhood and follow the conditions of the CUP? I'm not really sure of the answer. Each of the Planning Commissioners have said that Cal Poly needs a Greek Row, and Cal Poly has previously had plans for a "Greek Village" but at the last SC LC meeting, Cal Poly gave a presentation on their housing development and there is no plan for that anymore. Jan Marx asked about it during the presentation at SCLC and Cal Poly said they might designate one floor of one dorm for Greek life members, but otherwise, there isn't any plan to house their fraternities and sororities on campus. I agree with the Planning Commissioners that the answer isn't having fraternities operating in the neighborhoods. It's not feasible for them to operate within the conditions of the CUPs for events, including rush and other parties. They should have a space, away from the neighborhoods, where they can have their events. There are 18 fraternities right now, not including Alpha Gamma Rho. Next year, another fraternity has been approved to join Cal Poly's campus and Cal Poly is moving to year round operations this summer to allow for increased enrollment. The ultimate solution is a bigger conversation but at some point, Cal Poly needs to understand their responsibility toward the neighborhoods and have some accountability for providing space for its fraternities to operate. It seems unfair that the City has to bear this burden. Thank you for your time. -Kathie 1 From:kathie walker < > Sent:Monday, December 2, 2024 5:21 PM To:Stewart, Erica A; McDonald, Whitney Cc:Cindy Vix; Marlin D. Vix; Karen Adler; Steven Walker; Jeff Eidelman; Darrell Voss Subject:St. Fratty's Day Committee This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Whitney and Erica, Some residents who live and/or own property affected by St. Fratty's Day have formed a committee and would like to schedule a meeting to discuss our insights, concerns, and ideas for addressing the upcoming event. We realize that Cal Poly has a task force that includes SLOPD Chief Rick Scott, but we also understand that the primary focus of that task force is on Cal Poly's campus. We feel it is critical that residents in the City, particularly those directly affected, also have input. Please let us know when you are both available to meet. We are happy to meet at the City's office if that is most convenient for you. Thank you, Kathie Walker