The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/19/2026 Item 6a, Walker kathie walker < To:Marx, Jan; E-mail Council Website; Francis, Emily; Stewart, Erica A; Boswell, Mike; Shoresman, Michelle; Advisory Bodies Subject:AEPi Appeal at Council - May 19,2026 Attachments:AEPi Council Appeal 5-19-2026.pdf CC. Planning Commission Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council, I've attached a letter regarding the upcoming appeal by Alpha Epsilon Pi on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, which includes a video link to relevant statements made by fraternity members during the first re-review of the Planning Commission 18 months ago on November 13, 2024. The statements made during that hearing pertain to the overall situation, including the current appeal. Thank you for your consideration. Kathie Walker 1 1 Dear Mayor Stewart and Members of the City Council: I am writing regarding the appeal filed by Alpha Epsilon Pi (AEPi) asking that you uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous 7-0 decision to revoke its Conditional Use Permit for fraternity operations at 280 California Boulevard. The staff report accurately summarizes the three noise citations that triggered mandatory re-review, but it does not present the full scope of documented violations and warning provided to the fraternity members. AEPi’s appeal makes several arguments, which are rebutted by the City, but I want to add some additional context. R-4 zoning applies to higher density living, such as apartments. There are generally more people in a concentrated area, so noise and other issues potentially impact more people. For example, when Delta Upsilon’s CUP was reviewed by the Planning Commission, a property manager who represented 29 tenants, including Cal Poly students, said that her tenants complained on nearly a daily basis because of the noise and disruptions from the nearby fraternity house. Because of the higher density, more people at adjacent properties are impacted. An R-4 zone is still a residential zone meant for everyday living and is not an appropriate place to operate as an event venue for fraternity parties. The appeal suggests that revocation could push fraternity operations into neighborhoods where fraternities are not permitted. AEPi’s fraternity operations already extend beyond the property with the CUP. The adjacent property at 331 Hathway Avenue in an R-2 zone is illegally operating as a fraternity house associated with AEPi. It was listed on the AB 524 report as a fraternity during the 2022-2023 academic year and has continued to operate as a fraternity, holding fraternity event s there including during this academic year. Code Enforcement has issued a Notice to the property owner and tenants , and SLOPD issued a noise citation there in May 2025 for a party involving more than 100 people. The existence or potential expansion of illegal fraternity operations in surrounding neighborhoods is not a reason to decline to enforce its zoning regulations and conditions related to the CUP at 280 California Blvd. Fraternity use in a residential neighborhood is not allowed “by right.” It is a land use category under the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code that requires a Conditional Use Permit with conditions that impose limitations because, as courts have recognized for decades, fraternity use carries characteristics that can be incompatible with residential neighborhoods. The United States Supreme Court addressed this in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974), where the Justice wrote: “fraternity houses, and the like present urban problems. More people occupy a given space; more cars rather continuously pass by; more cars are parked; noise travels with crowds.” The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ First Amendment/associational challenge and held that no fundamental associational right was implicated by a zoning ordinance that excludes fraternity use. The California Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion in City of Long Beach v. California Lambda Chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity, 255 Cal. App. 2d 789 (1967), rejecting the argument that because fraternity members live on the premises, their use is purely residential. The court ruled, “The living on the premises is not the test.” The court went further, recognizing the unique impacts of a fraternity versus an apartment or boarding house, stating that “college spirit contemplates frequent gatherings with attendant boisterous conduct on occasions” and that “the rush parties, the dances, the rallies and other manifestations of the collegiate spirit are present in a fraternity house and frequently absent in a boarding house, a lodging house or an apartment.” 2 The CUP process exists so the City can evaluate whether a specific use at a specific location can be made compatible through conditions. When the required findings can no longer be supported, the permit must be revoked. AEPi was sent a Notice with a warning in July 2025, after its second noise citation that three violations within any twelve-month rolling period would result in re-review. It received its third citation in October 2025, three months after its final warning, and only six months after its previous two citations. City records show that AEPi fraternity members also received an earlier warning in May 2025 for a 65- person event but instead of counting that violation against the CUP, Code Enforcement resolved the matter on site, and the fraternity was given another chance with a warning that its CUP was in jeopardy. May 23, 2025: Occupancy Violation at the Car Wash Event. Code Enforcement records document a car wash event at 280 California Boulevard on May 23, 2025, with approximately 50 to 65 people, exceeding the 25-person limit under Condition 4. A Code Enforcement officer responded and spoke with fraternity members, explaining that the event violated the CUP and that a citation would put it at risk. The Risk Manager for the fraternity, Eliran Solomon, stated he was unaware that exceeding 25 people could jeopardize the CUP. That statement is difficult to reconcile against the fact that the fraternity told the Planning Commission approximately five months earlier, in November 2024, that they could stay within the 25-person limitation for gatherings. Commissioners asked if 280 California Blvd was large enough to accommodate the fraternity in light of the events they seemed to want to host, and AEPi said it was “absolutely” large enough. The commissioners also issued stern warnings to the AEPi members to strictly abide by the conditions of the CUP and said if the fraternity received a single noise citation, they would be back before the Planning Commission and would likely lose their CUP. Excerpts from the November 2024 Planning Commission hearing, including those statements are here: https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/1192927416 On May 23, 2025, Code Enforcement made clear that any event exceeding 25 people was a CUP violation and would trigger re-review, because there were already two violations of the CUP conditions on file. Even presuming there was a misunderstanding beforehand, at that point, the fraternity members understood the 25-person limitation for gatherings on site. Four days later, on May 27, 2025, AEPi held a “White Lies” party with Sigma Kappa sorority at 280 California Blvd. It is not realistic to believe that the party with the sorority was limited to 25 fraternity and sorority combined members. City records also show a code case was opened for property maintenance standards. Code Enforcement issued a violation in December 2025 for overflowing trash, debris, furniture, tarps, and other items accumulating at the property and visible from the public right-of-way, in violation of Condition 7, which requires the property to be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. A code case was opened December 12 and closed December 23, 2025. This violation occurred in the period between the third noise citation in October 2025 and the notice of re-review on January 29, 2026. The most significant evidence before this Council is the Cal Poly FSL event registration record for AEPi at 280 California Blvd. Cal Poly requires all fraternity events to be submitted through its FSL office for approval. After events, fraternities submit post-event attendance data to Cal Poly taken from the DoorList app, which is an app used by fraternities and sororities to post events and track guest lists at events. 3 During the Planning Commission’s hearing on November 13, 2024, AEPi said that they had not hosted any parties through Cal Poly’s registration during that academic year, and the Commission asked if they had any events planned, which they did give a straightforward answer. AEPi’s records show that on November 12, the day before the hearing, they registered a Christmas party scheduled for three days after that hearing on November 16, followed by two more parties within less than a week at 280 California Blvd: November 16, 2024 Christmas Party November 20, 2024 Holiday Themed sorority exchange November 21, 2024 “Brat and Frat” sorority exchange It is not reasonable to believe that these events, including an open party and two sorority exchanges, had 25 or less people, especially considering that AEPi has about 100 members, sororities also have an equal number of members, plus AEPi’s registered event forms customarily listed an attendance of 100 – 160 people. AEPi’s records document another 21 events in 2025, and 7 additional events in 2026 through April 1, that listed attendance of 100 – 160 people. The events for which attendance was recorded exceeded the 25- person CUP limit, in most cases by a factor of four to more than six times. The three events that produced police citations were not exceptional. They were representative of a routine pattern of large fraternity parties that happened to generate noise citations on those nights. There are other factors associated with large fraternity parties, such as traffic and roaming crowds that walk through the neighborhoods after the parties. Also, SLOPD is not always called when noisy parties occur. There were many times when AEPi had parties that I walked down to the fraternity late at night to speak with them, ask for them to quiet down, and did not call SLOPD. Yet I was still disturbed by the noise, had to get out of bed, get dressed, and walk down to find the source of the party noise. On one occasion, I texted the person listed on AEPi’s Instagram account as the recruitment chair to ask him to turn down the music and did not call SLOPD. Complaints to SLOPD are not an accurate indicator of the disruption felt by the neighbors. AEPi received its modified CUP in November 2024 following prior violations. Within months of that modification, the fraternity was hosting events with 65, 160, 160, 160, and 160 attendees before the first noise citation was issued under the new CUP. The twelve sorority exchange events for which no attendance count was shown are not included in the table below, though it is reasonable to conclude that each involved more than 25 combined fraternity and sorority members. Date Event Attendance CUP Limit Multiplier 2/1/2025 Rhyme Without Reason 65 25 2.6x 2/8/2025 Jungle Party 160 25 6.4x 2/14/2025 Valentine Party 160 25 6.4x 2/16/2025 Boiler Room DJ Party 160 25 6.4x 2/22/2025 Neon Space Party 160 25 6.4x 4/16/2025 SLOPD Citation #1 ~150 cited 25 6x 4/18/2025 SLOPD Citation #2 / Euphoria Party 160 registered / ~100 cited 25 6.4x 4 4/19/2025 Bikini Bottom Party 160 25 6.4x 5/2025 Car Wash Event (Code Violation) 50–65 25 2–2.6x 10/11/2025 Rhyme Without Reason 80 25 3.2x 10/29/2025 SLOPD Citation #3 ~100 cited 25 4x 11/15/2025 Christmas Party 160 25 6.4x 1/16/2026 Winter Rush Event 1 100 25 4x 1/17/2026 Winter Rush Event 2 100 25 4x 1/18/2026 Winter Rush Event 3 100 25 4x 2/14/2026 Valentine Party 150 25 6x 2/21/2026 Jewpiter Space Rave 100 registered / 375 per DoorList 25 4x–15x 2/27/2026 Rave with Delta Gamma 160 25 6.4x 2/28/2026 Jewmanji Jungle Party 100 25 4x Conduct After Formal Notice of Re-Review On January 29, 2026, City staff notified AEPi fraternity members and the property owner that the CUP would be referred to the Planning Commission for re-review. In the thirty days following that notice, AEPi hosted at least four events with documented expected attendance of 100 - 160 people. The February 27 event with Delta Gamma sorority, showing 160 expected attendees, was confirmed by text with AEPi’s president on February 24 in the comment section of the event registration records. The February 21 Jewpiter Space Rave event was visible on DoorList and the number of guests and guest list was also visible. The day of the event, the post showed 375 people planned to attend. A screenshot of the DoorList post of the event below. Cal Poly produced the event registration records for the 7 events in 2026 within 10 days, and subsequently, about one month ago, the post-event reports were requested to confirm the actual number of guests at each of the 7 events in 2026. Cal Poly claimed those post-event attendance records would take approximately three months, meaning the records would not be available before this hearing. 5 AEPi’s decision to continue hosting large-scale events after receiving formal notice of re-review is relevant to the Planning Commission’s finding that no set of conditions could reasonably secure compatibility with the residential neighborhood. This reflected an ongoing decision by the fraternity to continue hosting large-scale events despite the conditions of the CUP and formal notice of re-review. AEPi’s appeal to the Planning Commission also invoked its identity as a Jewish fraternity and describes Passover Seders, Havdalah gatherings as activities that would be threatened by revocation. The Council should be clear about what this revocation does and does not affect. Revoking the CUP does not prevent AEPi’s members from living at 280 California Boulevard. They are still allowed to hold a Passover Seder, a Havdalah ceremony, or any other religious or cultural observance in their home. They can still be fraternity members and live in their home. They just can’t operate as a fraternity at that location. Fraternity members told the Planning Commission that they hold their chapter meetings on Cal Poly’s campus in a space that accommodates the 100 or so members. There is a suitable location for their chapter meetings on campus. The citations that caused this revocation were generated by large, loud, late-night fraternity parties with 100 to 150 attendees. The fraternity’s FSL records show event after event with 65 to 160 expected guests, shortly after the Planning Commission’s first hearing in November 2024, continuing through 2025 and even after notification in January 2026 that the fraternity would have a second re-review by the Planning Commission. The February 21 party was publicly advertised as a rave on DoorList and showed 375 people indicating they planned to attend. There is a difference between a religious gathering within a residence and recurring fraternity parties involving loud music and 100 to 160 attendees or more entering and leaving the property late at night through surrounding residential neighborhoods. The issue before the Council is not religious observance, but rather, is whether repeated fraternity events at this property violated the terms of the CUP, which they did on an ongoing basis. The Planning Commission revoked the permit on a well-documented record after giving AEPi a second chance in November 2024, which was followed within days by additional fraternity parties and sorority exchanges that are difficult to reconcile with a 25-person gathering limitation. The record, including the additional code violations, the FSL event registration data showing systematic and routine disregard of the 25-person limit, and AEPi’s continuing parties of 100-160 people after receiving formal notice of re- review, confirms that the Planning Commission’s findings were correct. The record supports the Planning Commission’s conclusion that no set of conditions would reasonably allow this fraternity use to operate compatibly at this location within the residential neighborhood. The Planning Commission made a unanimous 7-0 finding for revocation. I respectfully ask this Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s findings. Sincerely, Kathie Walker