Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-2025 Walker (Fraternities & CUPs) kathie walker <kathiewalkerslo@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December To:Advisory Bodies; E-mail Council Website; Stewart, Erica A; Francis, Emily; Shoresman, Michelle; Boswell, Mike; Marx, Jan Subject:Fraternities and CUPs Attachments:PC-1092-2024 (USE-0625-2024 -- 280 California Blvd. PC-1092-2024 (USE-0625-2024).pdf; 280 California CUP history.pdf; 1264 Foothill CUP history.pdf Mayor, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners, Please do more to solve the “fraternity problem”, which was first brought to the attention of City staff, including SLOPD, in November 2021. It has now been more than four years, and I have reached the point where I am convinced that the City does not want to do its job to enforce the Municipal Code and the existing fraternity CUPs. This is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury’s conclusions after its formal investigation. This is affecting people's lives. My husband and I realized we had to leave our long-term home in the neighborhood after hearing the City’s response to the Grand Jury report. Its denial of what is actually happening was the final straw. How can we address a problem when those responsible for maintaining order deny that a problem even exists? My family’s frustration grew over the years because the City was not helping to solve the problem through the tools that already exist. My ongoing efforts put me in the crosshairs of fraternity members because they blame me for uncovering the issue of dozens of fraternities operating illegally in neighborhoods. Even after we moved, the president of the Interfraternity Council at Cal Poly, Colin Shea, submitted a public records request for “Correspondence between City and Kathie & Steve Walker.” The final batch of documents were submitted to him last Friday. I sat next to Colin Shea during the SCLC meeting last month, November 20. He mentioned he knew we had moved and that he has friends near our new home. He did not tell me then that he had recently requested all of our correspondence with the City, nor did he ask me any questions or offer any solutions to the problem we've been trying to solve. He was the president of the IFC from January to December 2025 and has never approached me for a conversation. If his motivation for requesting our correspondence is to uncover the problem, I am happy to talk about that and discuss potential solutions. My only goal is, and has always been, to solve the problem for everyone 1 involved. A Greek Row on campus is the best solution, but Cal Poly has recently eliminated that from its Master Plan. The City's General Plan says the City will encourage Cal Poly to locate its fraternities on campus. Has the City done that? Looking through all of the documentation I have sent to the City was eye-opening. I have provided multiple-sources of documentation to show the problem and offered viable ways to solve it. I have spoon-fed the information to the City, again and again, to no avail. At first I thought the City was overburdened, and then began to question whether it actually wants to do the necessary work to solve the problem. I wondered whether it was political and the City didn't want to rock the boat with Cal Poly. The Grand Jury investigated the issue, visited the neighborhood at night, interviewed City staff, and gathered information over many months. It concluded that the City had not enforced its laws, had not enforced the fraternity CUPs, and had allowed dozens of fraternities to operate illegally throughout the neighborhoods, and correctly found that the neighborhood near campus was "almost unlivable for most residents." I have come to believe that the reason the City has not enforced its laws is because it does not want to push back against Cal Poly to hold it responsible for its fraternity operations in the City. This stance is to the detriment of the City's residents. Over the years, the City has not done much to solve the problem and I continued to provide information, which put me in a spotlight. I was targeted by fraternity members, cyberstalked, harassed, and verbally attacked by intoxicated fraternity members standing in my yard, calling me vulgar names and telling me to kill myself. Our address was published online multiple times as a party location, including on St. Fratty's Day. A college student walked up to my bedroom window and said my name. Our property was vandalized. I feared for my safety, and when the City continued to deny the problem in its response to the Grand Jury, we made the difficult decision to move without telling anyone our new address. Shortly afterward, someone smashed the windshield of a car parked at our former home. Then on October 6, someone posted my name on YikYak with a reference of “2.3 miles" which is the exact distance between our former and current home. 2 You can understand why many former neighbors are afraid to speak up. They contact me privately instead. I have not called SLOPD in months, yet the SLOPD dispatch log continues to show noise complaints at fraternity houses. Despite moving, we remain committed to advocating for a solution, but we are now able to sleep and enjoy peaceful weekends. The contrast in quality of life is staggering. I am currently preparing an updated report on fraternity operations in residential neighborhoods because the problem is still not being adequately addressed. It has grown since the Grand Jury report was published. More houses have been converted to fraternity use and are hosting regular parties. Properties previously identified by Code Enforcement as illegal fraternity locations continue operating without consequence. There are currently 18 fraternities at Cal Poly and next fall, there will be 20. Cal Poly’s AB 524 reports document around 30 events per fraternity per year, not including seven fall rush events and more during winter rush. That’s over 700 events per year. For those who live near a fraternity, it is constant, intrusive, and exhausting. As the Grand Jury wrote after visiting the Alta Vista neighborhood, it is “almost unlivable.” Accountability for the fraternities has been virtually nonexistent. Property owners profit from renting to fraternities at premium rates. Fraternities host loud parties, concerts, and late-night gatherings with little regard for neighbors or the law. Code Enforcement dismisses legitimate, documented complaints as 'unfounded'. At the top of this system is regulation. The City’s primary tool for 3 managing fraternity land use is the Conditional Use Permit. But a CUP is only as meaningful as the willingness to enforce it. Without enforcement, conditions are meaningless. Fraternities with CUPs have repeatedly violated their conditions, some exceeding occupancy limits by more than 100 people, with no consequences beyond citations from SLOPD. Lambda Chi Alpha is limited to 48 people, yet hosted a party with 200 people in May 2025. It has received six noise citations, including an unruly gathering, since its CUP was approved in October 2025. Alpha Epsilon Pi is limited to 25, and received two noise citations in April for parties of 150 people and 100 people, and another in October for 100 people. I have attached a pdf of the recent history of both of these fraternities. During AEPi’s CUP re-review last year, planning commissioners asked and staff confirmed that a noise citation is considered a public nuisance. Condition 12 of AEPi’s CUP allows the CUP to be brought back for review for a public nuisance or adverse impacts. The planning commission was split 4 to 2, with dissenters stating the fraternity was not appropriate in the neighborhood, despite the conditions. Several commissioners said they were concerned that the fraternity members would not follow the conditions. Those commissioners who voted yes said "AS CONDITIONED" the neighborhood would be protected. At the end of AEPi’s hearing, commissioners warned the fraternity that it needs to take the conditions seriously because if they got another noise citation, they would be back at the Planning Commission (per Condition 12). Less than six months later, AEPi was issued a noise citation from SLOPD for a noisy party with 150 people, and another two days later with 100 people listed. The maximum number of people allowed for a meeting or gathering is 25. Still, the CUP was not modified or brought back to the planning commission. In June, Code Enforcement told me they were moving forward with a violation for Lambda Chi Alpha’s 200-person event in May. Last week, I was told no violation was issued because the City could not verify the party was “fraternity-sponsored” and attendance limits only apply if the fraternity registered the event with Cal Poly. This requirement is not specifically stated in the CUP. The condition says: "Routine meetings and gatherings for the fraternity shall be limited to a maximum of 48 people..." Under this interpretation, a fraternity could host a 500-person party by calling it “private” and not be in violation of the CUP. A primary finding that was cited by the planning commission and contained in the CUP says “As conditioned the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because conditions have been included that place limits on the number of persons allowed on site, restrict activities, provide parking, and limit potential disturbances to neighboring properties…” As it turns out, the event was listed on Lambda Chi Alpha's AB524 report so it was "fraternity- sponsored" but the City never followed up when the report was published in late September. City staff also could have asked Cal Poly if the event was registered beforehand, as required by Cal Poly's rules. Still, it is not logical that an event with 200 people at the fraternity does not violate the condition that no more than 48 people can attend a "gathering" on the property. 4 Code Enforcement also overlooked the condition for review for any public nuisance or adverse impacts to the neighbors. This selective enforcement standard mirrors what the Grand Jury found in its investigation. So what happens next? What happens when lifelong residents finally give up because enforcement never comes? Or when those who built these neighborhoods either move away or live out their final years surrounded by shouting, trash, drunken crowds, strangers using their yard as a toilet, and the fear of retaliation for reporting violations? Neighborhoods do not fail overnight. They erode one family at a time. As more residents leave, homes become investor rentals, fraternity activity expands, and the problem spreads. We already see it in the neighborhoods north of Foothill and the Ramona/Tassajara area. Fraternity houses are operating there and spreading further west into the 300 block of Foothill. The point is that there is a much larger problem with dozens of unregulated fraternity houses, but CUP enforcement is the easiest and smallest piece of it. If the City cannot even enforce the few CUPs it already has, how can anyone believe it will ever address the larger issue? The CUPs are the low- hanging fruit. If the City can’t get that right, how is it going to tackle the much larger problem with dozens of fraternity houses operating illegally throughout neighborhoods? I am asking you to do what is right for the residents who deserve peace and the quiet enjoyment of their homes by ensuring CUPs are enforced. The broader issue of illegal fraternity houses is enormous, but progress must begin with enforcing the tools we already have. Please encourage Code Enforcement staff to work toward solving the problem. Respectfully, Kathie Walker 5