The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/26/2026 Item 5a, Walker kathie walker < To:E-mail Council Website; Marx, Jan; Francis, Emily; Stewart, Erica A; Boswell, Mike; Shoresman, Michelle Cc:Advisory Bodies Subject:Neighborhood Livability / Code Enforcement Study Session 5/26/2026 Attachments:5-26-2026 Study Session Code Enforcement Livability.pdf; Tribune Editorial - Wake up Cal Poly 1-19-2025.pdf CC. Planning Commission San Luis Obispo City Council, I have attached a report after going through public records for the past several months related to code enforcement and fraternity use since the problem was first brought to the Community Development Department's attention in 2023. It is relevant to the upcoming study session on code enforcement and Greek life, and neighborhood livability. I apologize for the length of the report. It contains records and other important information to support the position that the City Council should not direct staff to de-prioritize or pull back on enforcement of unlawful fraternity operations within neighborhoods, which seems to be the implied direction in the agenda, nor should it direct staff to study or develop zoning changes that would permit or expand fraternity use in residential neighborhoods, including an overlay zone that is more permissive than conditions set forth in fraternity Conditional Use Permits issued as recently as two years ago. I have attached an Editorial written by the Tribune Editorial Board in 2025. Things have not improved in the neighborhoods and the residents are depending on our elected representatives to do the right thing and direct City staff to enforce the zoning laws, abate the nuisance properties from continuing to operate and disrupt the neighborhoods so that the City's residents can have safe and livable conditions. Thank you, Kathie Walker 1 1 This report is submitted in advance of the City Council study session. According to records produced by the city, emails between Cal Poly and City leadership including the Community Development Director, Cal Poly is leaning in the direction of accommodating Cal Poly’s fraternities with proposed zoning changes in the City’s residential neighborhoods that are currently in crisis and need the most help of any other neighborhoods within the City to achieve livability. This was confirmed by the Grand Jury’s months-long investigation and is consistent with SLOPD noise maps and maps showing dozens of fraternities operating illegally within residential neighborhoods. No specific group “belongs” or “does not belong” in any neighborhoods within the City, and the Council should ensure that there is equal protection to the right of quiet enjoyment and abatement of nuisances across neighborhoods, regardless of demographics. Fraternity Enforcement and Institutional Coordination of Land Use Policy Between Cal Poly and the City of San Luis Obispo For several years, residents living in San Luis Obispo’s residential neighborhoods have reported ongoing fraternity-related disturbances involving large gatherings, noise violations, public intoxication, harassment, and recurring disruption of residential life. During that same period, the City repeatedly represented that enforcement of unlawful fraternity operations was difficult because identifying and verifying fraternity properties required substantial investigative effort and reliable address information. Public records produced by the City now establish that the City possessed far more operational information regarding fraternity activity than was publicly understood. Most residents do not know that fraternity use is not legal within the neighborhoods, and they simply call SLOPD to report the large, noisy parties. Most residents do not know that they must report the illegal land use to Code Enforcement. If residents were educated about the process used by the City, there would likely be even more complaints than it currently receives. The study session on May 26, 2026, will determine whether Council direction is given to enforce its current land use laws that govern illegal fraternity operations or to give direction to lessen the priority and revise the City’s policies to accommodate the institution whose behavior made enforcement necessary in the first place. That framing is consistent within the City's records, produced by the City over the past several months, which reveal a story considerably more complicated than the one the residents and the Grand Jury were told. City leadership said that identifying illegal fraternity operations was difficult because the City didn't have reliable address information to confirm the unlawful fraternity use across the neighborhoods in the northern part of the City. They said that enforcement required substantial investigative effort and that there were staffing constraints. The records tell a different story. Beginning no later than February 2022, Cal Poly Police emailed recurring weekly Fraternity & Sorority Life “FSL Approved Off-Campus Events” lists to SLOPD identifying fraternity address locations throughout residential neighborhoods before each weekend. Those records were distributed internally to “teams” within SLOPD and reviewed operationally by SLOPD personnel after the weekend. At the same time, Code Enforcement was attempting to verify many of the same fraternity locations through labor-intensive investigations and resident complaints. Later records show that Code Enforcement itself developed a separate database identifying more than 80 illegal fraternity and sorority locations, along with dozens of additional suspected illegal locations. Despite years of operational knowledge, repeat complaints to Code Enforcement, Notices of Violation sent to properties operating unlawfully as fraternities, hundreds of police responses to large-scale 2 fraternity events at known fraternity addresses, and Planning Commission proceedings - where Commissioners suggested to City staff that Code Enforcement and SLOPD needed to be actively communicating about the issue - unlawful fraternity operations largely continued throughout residential neighborhoods without abatement. At the same time, another process was developing within City administration. Beginning within three weeks after the Grand Jury report was published in June 2025 - which criticized the City’s lack of enforcement of its zoning laws related to illegal fraternities operating in the residential neighborhoods and determined the neighborhood was “almost unlivable” - senior City leadership and Cal Poly leadership were engaged in ongoing meetings and discussions regarding future fraternity policy, zoning amendments to the City’s codes to accommodate fraternities, overlay zone concepts for fraternity use within residential neighborhoods, and CUP restructuring that would “work for fraternities.” Those discussions took place while enforcement of the at least 60 illegal fraternity properties remained unresolved, while the City was preparing its response to the Grand Jury filed on September 16, 2025, and have continued to the present time, while the City was preparing to “prioritize” enforcement efforts through a Study Session presentation at a future City Council meeting on May 26, 2026. Community Development began claiming that enforcement of the unlawful fraternities was taking too many staff resources, and that claim may be used by Community Development as justification for pulling back on enforcement efforts and making broader accommodations for Cal Poly and its interests within the City’s neighborhoods during that same Study Session on May 26, 2026. While the City has limited housing and little to no separation between R-4 and R-1 single family residential neighborhoods, and Cal Poly has more land than any other CSU and the highest number of IFC fraternity members within any other CSU or UC, Cal Poly refuses to provide the promised Greek Village or other housing on its large campus for its own fraternities. Instead, Cal Poly insists that the City accommodates its 18-20 fraternities within the neighborhoods, and that the City’s neighborhoods continue to absorb the negative impacts of fraternity use. Records produced by the City also show that the mayor was aligned with the ongoing discussions of accommodating fraternities within the residential neighborhoods, through frequent, ongoing discussions with Cal Poly’s representatives who participated in the policy coordination meetings since July 2025. Records show the mayor’s interests in making those accommodations within the City’s neighborhoods, which she knows had had a detrimental impact on the residents in those neighborhoods. The Planning Commission found – five time in the past year- that fraternity use in the highest density R-4 zones was detrimental to the health, safety and well-being of residents in those same neighborhoods. The Grand Jury also investigated the issue and found that the neighborhood was “almost unlivable” due to the fraternities operating there. The records also raise concerns regarding the fragmentation of operational information within the City’s enforcement system, the relationship between City policy coordination with Cal Poly and the extent to which Cal Poly influenced the City’s legal and policy framing regarding fraternity regulation, including proposed revisions of the City’s zoning codes to accommodate Cal Poly’s fraternities within residential neighborhoods. Such accommodation is not consistent with the City’s General Plan nor the Planning Commission’s repeated findings. Cooperation between institutions is expected and necessary in a university community. The concern raised by the records is whether important boundaries between the City’s enforcement and policymaking were insufficiently clear during a period of longstanding neighborhood impacts, unresolved enforcement failures. 3 The City’s records establish that over 80 illegal fraternity operations exist within residential neighborhoods. The City has declared the use to be a public nuisance that requires abatement. Therefore, the question is whether the City intends to meaningfully enforce its existing land use laws and policies to protect residential neighborhoods, or instead, give City staff direction to restructure those policies in a manner that accommodates the longstanding unlawful operations of Cal Poly’s 18-20 fraternities despite years of documented incompatibility findings and ongoing neighborhood impacts that have been found to negatively impact the livability of the neighborhoods and adversely impact the residents’ health, safety and welfare. Particularly significant are the Planning Commission’s repeated findings that fraternity operations were incompatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods and detrimental to the health and well-being of the residential neighborhoods. At the same time those findings were made, senior City and Cal Poly leadership were engaged in ongoing meetings and discussions regarding future accommodation- oriented approaches for Cal Poly’s fraternity operations within the same residential neighborhoods. The tension between those formal incompatibility findings and the City’s emerging policy direction raises questions regarding consistency, governance, and the future application of the City’s land use policies and enforcement. OPERATIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF FRATERNITY ACTIVITY By February 2022, SLOPD was receiving recurring weekly “FSL Approved Off-Campus Events” lists from Cal Poly Police before each weekend. The lists identified fraternity and sorority organizations, event dates and times, and the addresses where fraternity events were scheduled to occur throughout residential neighborhoods. Most of these events took place in residential neighborhoods where they are prohibited by law, and those with Conditional Use Permits exceeded the occupancy limitations listed as a condition in the CUP or were during times prohibited by the CUP. These lists were distributed to SLOPD patrol teams and used by SLOPD personnel monitoring weekend activity in the neighborhoods. On November 11, 2023, I sent an email to SLOPD Chief Rick Scott and the City Manager following a meeting with the Community Development Director, Timmi Tway, and Code Enforcement Supervisor, John Mezzapesa. The email explained that Tway and Mezzapesa indicated SLOPD would need to be looped into the issue related to illegal fraternity operations in the residential neighborhoods and looked forward to SLOPD’s help in solving the matter. Chief Scott did not respond or acknowledge the weekly lists received by SLOPD that listed the addresses of the fraternity parties throughout the neighborhoods each weekend. In March 2024, following the weekend, SLOPD Public Affairs Manager Christine Wallace emailed Cal Poly’s Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life regarding an unruly gathering citation issued at 299 Albert Drive (zoned R-1). Wallace questioned why 299 Albert Drive did not appear on the list of approved fraternity events sent by Cal Poly because she knew the property was operating as a fraternity house. Cal Poly later confirmed that 299 Albert Drive had in fact appeared on its approved list of events that weekend. Following that same March 2024 weekend, I sent an email to leadership at the City, Cal Poly administration, and Council, along with videos from our video surveillance that showed the ongoing noise from fraternity parties that kept us awake all weekend. I said that the fraternity at 299 Albert Drive was the lone noise citation that weekend, despite multiple noisy fraternity parties. I had just brought my husband home from hospitalization following an accident and major spinal surgery that took months of 4 recovery, with rest being the most important requirement for healing, and I was pleading for enforcement to restore some normalcy to our lives. At the same time, Code Enforcement was attempting to identify and verify fraternity properties through investigative efforts requiring substantial staff time. This included confirming several newly established illegal fraternity properties near our home that had begun to operate in fall of 2023 and have continued to operate. SLOPD did not communicate with Community Development or Code Enforcement that it had the addresses of the illegal fraternity operations contained in weekly lists of addresses for each fraternity party in the neighborhood that weekend. In October 2024, Code Enforcement Supervisor John Mezzapesa submitted a request to Cal Poly seeking confirmation regarding illegal fraternity activity at specific addresses over the previous year. Cal Poly refused to cooperate or provide confirmation of the addresses. Yet most of those same addresses appeared repeatedly in the weekly fraternity event lists that Cal Poly emailed to SLOPD during the timeframe of Mezzapesa’s request. The City already had confirmation of the addresses of the illegal fraternity operations while claiming it could not enforce the illegal fraternity operations without confirmation. It’s not clear whether senior City leadership understood the extent of the fraternity address information that was already being received by SLOPD, and why that information was not being shared with Community Development or Code Enforcement. It was made clear to the SLOPD Chief in an email in November 2023 that the illegal fraternity operations were a problem and that Community Development needed his help in identifying those illegal fraternity locations. On Friday, February 2, 2024, after receiving Cal Poly’s list of addresses of approved fraternity events in the neighborhoods, SLOPD lieutenant Aaron Schafer emailed Christine Wallace, “We need to have some conversations about these events that they approve.” Her response was that she would let him know about what was happening in Community Development related to the fraternity addresses on Tuesday the following week. Meanwhile, during that same time frame Wallace was a committee member on the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) and continually shut down discussions of the issue when it was brought up by the committee members who represented the well-being of the neighborhoods. Wallace’s standard response was, “I’m not code enforcement,” and therefore she absolved herself of any discussions on the matter. The SLOPD Chief, who is also a committee member on SCLC, stayed silent on the issue during those same meetings. As a result, the community committee members’ concerns were not addressed and the discussion ended. Records show that Wallace had communication with Code Enforcement at least by January 2024 but apparently did not share the weekly address list information with Code Enforcement because 8 months later, the Code Enforcement Supervisor was asking Cal Poly to verify the addresses of illegal fraternity operations that were already contained on the weekly lists Cal Poly was sending to SLOPD that Wallace was reviewing each week. Throughout this same period, residents were repeatedly informed that identifying and verifying unlawful fraternity operations was difficult, labor-intensive, and dependent upon reliable address information, which Code Enforcement claimed it did not have. According to the Grand Jury report, the City represented that enforcement efforts were hindered by limited access to fraternity event address information from Cal Poly and by the difficulty of identifying unlawful fraternity operations within residential neighborhoods. The Grand Jury report also stated that 5 the Grand Jury’s investigation had been “hampered” by a lack of cooperation from SLOPD after the City declined to allow two requested patrol officers to participate in interviews during the investigation. Those officers likely possessed knowledge and operational familiarity with fraternity houses throughout the residential neighborhoods, including recurring responses to addresses associated with known illegal fraternity locations, noise complaints, and large-scale fraternity parties. Nevertheless, the City told the Grand Jury that testimony from the two patrol officers “would have been inefficient and operationally unsupportable,” asserting that patrol-level personnel were “not positioned to speak authoritatively” on the matters under investigation, which included the locations of fraternities operating within the residential neighborhoods. The only SLOPD personnel interviewed by the Grand Jury were Police Chief Rick Scott and Public Affairs Manager Christine Wallace. Neither patrolled the neighborhoods responding to fraternity parties at unlawful fraternity locations. Both, however, had received the weekly fraternity address lists emailed by Cal Poly beginning in at least February 2022. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY AND LACK OF ABATEMENT Enforcement activity for illegal fraternity started about 2 ½ years ago, after the Community Development Director, Timmi Tway, and Code Enforcement Supervisor, John Mezzapesa, realized that the addresses of the properties operating illegally as fraternities were listed in Cal Poly’s AB 524 report, published online on October 1, 2023. Despite those enforcement efforts, unlawful fraternity operations have continued and expanded throughout residential neighborhoods over multiple academic years. Planning Commission hearings were also held during that time, and quasi-legal determinations were made regarding the incompatibility of fraternity use in residential neighborhoods. Five CUPs were revoked because the commission determined incompatibility of fraternities within the residential neighborhoods, and the detrimental impact on those living and working nearby. But the fraternities continued to operate at those properties, despite the CUP revocation. Cal Poly’s fraternity event registration records show about 400 fraternity events held illegally in the neighborhoods in 2025, an increase from previous years, despite efforts by Code Enforcement for over the past two years to stop the illegal fraternities from operating. Parties customarily list 100-250 people and approximately a dozen parties are held each weekend. The chaos created by these large parties is not only from the individual parties, but the roaming intoxicated guests walking from party to party throughout the night, increased rideshare traffic shuttling guests around, stopping in the middle of the road, constant slamming of car doors throughout the night, trash, trespassing (to use residents’ yards to pee or vomit), vandalism such as intoxicated people kicking in fence boards, and other adverse impacts to those who live nearby. A tenant who lives near the Delta Upsilon fraternity house at 720 E. Foothill testified to the Planning Commission that the area resembled the downtown bar scene, related to the fraternity near his apartment. Within other neighborhoods, there are more than 50 fraternity properties, and the surrounding environment during the weekend is comparable to the downtown bar scene, except that many of the participants and intoxicated people participating and walking from party to party are younger than 21 years old. The City’s enforcement structure has not functioned in a manner capable of producing meaningful abatement despite years of operational knowledge, repeated complaints, and ongoing neighborhood impacts. The records show repeated instances in which properties already identified by the City as unlawful fraternity operations continued hosting fraternity-related events after enforcement action, including after Notices of Violation ordering abatement had been issued. Complaints involving those same properties 6 were frequently closed as “unable to verify” or “unfounded,” even where the City had previously determined the property was operating illegally as a fraternity. Fraternity events were publicly advertised online by the organizations themselves, and SLOPD responded to noise complaints at the addresses. In many cases, code enforcement investigations were closed because tenants did not answer the door or denied they hosted fraternity events, despite online event postings identifying the date, time, and address of fraternity parties on social media and on DoorList, and documented police responses to those events. There were also prior City legal findings through the issuance of Notices of Violation, concluding that the properties were unlawfully operating as fraternities at those same locations. Dismissals by Hearing Officer or Internally by Code Enforcement due to Clerical Errors In limited instances when an administrative fine was eventually issued, property owners often appealed and the cases were dismissed because of clerical errors within the Code Enforcement paperwork, such as an incorrect date or address, or failure to present a coherent case. Here are some examples that the Hearing Officer gave for dismissing Code Enforcement cases for illegal fraternity operations: • The citation itself was internally inconsistent, referring to both a “single citation” and two separate violation dates with different penalties. • The City failed to clearly identify the zoning violation or explain what specific “unpermitted use” allegedly occurred at the property. • The underlying Code Case Activity Report contained vague, passive-voice assertions without identifying who conducted inspections, when they occurred, what was personally observed, or how conclusions were reached. The Hearing Officer repeatedly questioned the absence of foundational evidence, asking: Who identified the fraternity? Who determined the violation occurred? What evidence supported the conclusion? Why was that evidence not included in the record? The Hearing Officer criticized the City for relying on anonymous, conclusory statements instead of competent factual evidence and noted that “no one single person identifies himself or herself and states in writing or oral testimony ‘I did this’ or ‘I saw that’ or ‘I concluded X.’” The Hearing Officer found that the City’s record did not even mention one of the alleged violation dates tied to the fine, calling that omission “most egregious.” The Hearing Officer ultimately dismissed cases and fines, concluding: “The burden of proof is on the city” and “the city has not provided any concrete proof.” But the City DID have sufficient evidence and proof to support the citation. The problem was that the City’s evidence was disorganized and not presented properly. It also structured the citations incorrectly, stacking fines for different dates into a single citation number, which was rejected by the Hearing Officer, yet that same practice continued. There is some important context here, because this is happening against the backdrop of a history of repeated mistakes by Community Development, from the very beginning of their attempts at enforcement of illegal fraternity operations. After enforcement began following Cal Poly’s publication of the addresses of fraternity events on October 1, 2023, property owners were notified that their property was operating or was suspected as operating as an illegal fraternity. In 2025, I requested the code enforcement records for properties identified in the AB 524 reports and was informed by the City Clerk that many of the enforcement letters were lost by the Community Development Department so could not be produced. I was given a spreadsheet of addresses that the City claimed had received notification of the illegal fraternity use, and the letters that could be located. Here’s what I found: 7 1. Many letters were not dated, despite the letter referencing action “five days from the date of this letter”; 2. Some letters contained an incorrect address; 3. Many addresses listed in the AB 524 reports were not included on the spreadsheet, therefore those property owners and fraternity tenants operating illegally as fraternities in the neighborhoods did not receive notification of the illegal use. In response to these mistakes, the Community Development Director said the work was not up to her standard and would be improved. Unfortunately, the record does not indicate that standards have improved. Regarding the addresses listed in the AB 524 reports that were overlooked by Code Enforcement, I sent a list of those missing addresses to Community Development and Code Enforcement so that notifications could be sent out to those properties. Unfortunately, Notices were never sent and there was no further enforcement of the addresses overlooked by the Code Enforcement Tech. 281 Albert Drive Illustrates an Example of the Ongoing Enforcement Problems One of those addresses that was overlooked by Code Enforcement, contained in my follow-up letter, but that was not sent any notice is 281 Albert Drive which has been operating as an illegal fraternity for Delta Upsilon in an R-1 zone for at least six years. Four months after a meeting on November 8, 2023, when the Community Development Director and Code Enforcement Supervisor became aware of the AB 524 report which listed the addresses of illegal fraternity operations in the neighborhoods and included 281 Albert Drive, on March 13, 2024 - St. Fratty’s Day - SLOPD cited an unruly gathering at 281 Albert Drive with 300 people, and was issued to a member of Delta Upsilon. The address was identified on the weekly list sent to SLOPD by Cal Poly of ‘FSL approved events’ indicating Cal Poly had approved the March 13, 2024, party at 281 Albert Drive. But there was no alignment between Code Enforcement and SLOPD, and therefore, no consequences from Code Enforcement for the 300-person fraternity party at an illegal fraternity location. Two months later, on May 10, 2024, SLOPD responded to another large, noisy fraternity party at 281 Albert Drive after 11 PM and issued a noise citation with 150 people listed on the citation, issued to a member of Delta Upsilon. That party was also registered through Cal Poly’s FSL office and approved by Cal Poly. Again, Code Enforcement did not send any notification to the property that it was not legally allowed to operate as a fraternity in a single-family residential neighborhood. In the fall 2024, another noise citation was issued to 281 Albert Drive for a loud fraternity party on November 1, 2024, at around 10:30 PM, issued to a member of Delta Upsilon. The party was also registered by Delta Upsilon through Cal Poly’s FSL office and approved by Cal Poly. Yet again, there was no consequence for the ongoing illegal use from Code Enforcement as the fraternity continued to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. On January 18, 2025, Code Enforcement observed a rush event at the property and on January 28, 2025, Code Enforcement sent the first “courtesy” Notice of Violation to the property owner and the tenants, telling them the property was an illegal fraternity and ordering abatement. A Code Enforcement Tech also visited the property and spoke with the fraternity tenants, advising them that it is against the law for them to hold fraternity events at 281 Albert Drive. It does not appear from the records that the property owner responded to the Notice of Violation issued on January 28, 2025. The Notice of Violation declared the property a public nuisance and ordered it to cease all fraternity activity. On May 2, 2025, a noise complaint was made to SLOPD at around midnight, and officers issued a noise citation for a large, noisy party at 281 Albert Drive, issued to a member of Delta Upsilon. Delta 8 Upsilon registered a party which was approved by Cal Poly for May 2, 2025, listing 100 expected guests. Although the City had declared 281 Albert Drive as an illegal fraternity operation through a Notice of Violation, and had ordered the property owner and fraternity members to cease all fraternity activity, the noise complaint at 281 Albert Drive was not communicated to Code Enforcement and there were no consequences of the continuing public nuisance and illegal fraternity use. On September 27, 2025, Code Enforcement observed a fraternity rush event at 281 Albert Drive. Code Enforcement had advanced knowledge that this event would occur because they conducted a proactive operation during the first weekend of fall rush recruitment which identified dozens of illegal fraternity locations, including 281 Albert Drive. Nearly two months later, on December 23, 2025, an Administrative Citation (#42012) with a $100 fine was prepared by a Code Enforcement Tech for the September 27, 2025, event and was sent to the property owner, who lives in the San Diego area. On January 6, 2026, the property owner emailed the Code Enforcement Tech, outlining multiple mistakes in the Notice and Administrative Citation form, which are listed numerically below, taken from his appeal. Aside from the mistakes outlined, he asked: “Specifically what exactly was the violation and on what date? Without this info, how can I possibly know what to correct and also whether or not an appeal is warranted. Very Kafka-esque.” Here are the problems listed by the property owner in his appeal: 1. The Administrative Citation listed the incorrect address of 280 Albert Drive rather than 281 Albert Drive. (see below) 2. The cover letter was dated January 28, 2025, nearly a year prior to the date it was sent. According to City records, the letter was sent on December 23, 2025. (see below) 3. The Administrative Citation listed the incorrect date of the event, as January 18, 2024 when it was actually on September 27, 2025. (see below) 4. The letter says the property owner has 5 days to appeal from the date of the letter, which was dated nearly a year earlier, and indicates to appeal using the enclosed ‘Director’s Appeal Form’ but no such form was enclosed. 5. The cover letter was sent to an incorrect address even though the ‘Administrative Citation’ shows the correct mailing address. (see below) 6. The invoice also lists an incorrect address. (see below) 7. The ‘Administrative Citation’ does not state specifically what the violation activity was on the date of the violation cited as September 27, 2025. These clerical errors ultimately resulted in the citation being voided internally by Code Enforcement before it reached the Hearing Officer. 9 10 On January 6, 2026, Code Enforcement sent another NOV to the property owner of 281 Albert Drive with an administrative fine of $100. The property owner contacted the Code Enforcement Tech about the fine and was told that the City had waived it and he did not need to pay the $100 citation. On February 2, 2026, Code Enforcement determined that another fraternity rush event occurred at 281 Albert Drive on January 19, 2026. (see below) 11 Afterward, Code Enforcement determined that Delta Upsilon held a fraternity party at 281 Albert Drive on January 30, 2026. Later, Code Enforcement determined Delta Upsilon held another fraternity party at 281 Albert Drive on February 20, 2026. SLOPD responded to a noise complaint at 281 Albert Drive on February 20, 2026, at approximately 10:45 PM and issued a noise citation to a member of Delta Upsilon, listing 150 people at the party and a live band/DJ. This was consistent with the DoorList post that advertised the fraternity party at 281 Albert Drive. Both fraternity parties were advertised on DoorList at 281 Albert Drive, listed at the bottom of the DoorList posts. (Attendees are edited from the screenshots, below.) 12 An Administrative Citation was not generated by the Code Enforcement Tech until March 11, 2026, which listed all three violations and citation fines from different dates under a single citation number. This practice was criticized by the Hearing Officer for other illegal Greek events, and the fines were dismissed by the Hearing Officer in those other cases. Based on the email from the property owner on March 16, 2026, the same NOV letter that was sent on December 23, 2025, was sent again, dated incorrectly as January 28, 2025, and indicated the violation occurred on January 18, 2024. (see below) The property owner’s email also says the Administrative Citation listed three dates of violations: January 18, January 30, and February 20, 2026. However, according to the Code Case Activity records, the rush event was on January 19 not on January 18, 2026. Again, it appears the Administrative Citation from the Code Enforcement Tech contained a clerical error. The invoice also listed an incorrect address, which was pointed out by the property owner two months earlier, on January 6, 2026. (see below) 13 On March 16, 2026, the property owner emailed the Code Enforcement Tech and the Code Enforcement Supervisor, stating the NOV was dated January 28, 2025 (one year earlier) and that the violation was on January 18, 2025 (also one year earlier) but staff notes listed violations on 1/18/26, 1/30/26 and 2/20/26. In his email, the property owner again asks the Code Enforcement Tech to specify the activities on those dates that constituted violations so he could determine whether an appeal is warranted. On March 17, 2026, it was determined that the Notice of Violation was issued to the incorrect address yet again, therefore Code Enforcement decided to void all citations and Notices of Violation. A new courtesy Notice of Violation was issued to restart the enforcement process. The Code Enforcement Tech emailed the property owner to let him know that all citations pertaining to 281 Albert Drive had been voided and the property did not have outstanding fines or citations that needed to be paid or addressed. According to the records, 281 Albert Drive has not received a single $100 administrative fine, despite repeated fraternity events held at the property over the course of many years, and the City’s knowledge of the illegal fraternity operations. The address was contained in the weekly lists sent to SLOPD by Cal Poly beginning in February 2022, was later listed on the AB 524 report published online on October 1, 2023, and was finally issued a courtesy Notice of Violation on January 28, 2025, which determined 281 Albert Drive was operating illegally as a fraternity, was a public nuisance, and ordered all fraternity activity to cease. Despite this knowledge and the legal determination by the City, no meaningful enforcement has occurred that has caused the illegal fraternity operation to cease. The same pattern appears repeatedly throughout the City’s enforcement history including substantial time and resources devoted to investigations that lead to no consequences, recurring verification problems and dismissals when substantial evidence exists, formal determination of unlawful fraternity operations, and continuing failure to escalate cases and abate the nuisance properties. Based on the records, the recurring issue of the expenditure of Code Enforcement resources, without making progress toward abatement of the properties that are operating illegally as fraternities in the neighborhoods, is primarily a result of internal inefficiencies within the Code Enforcement Department. 14 The failures documented in the code enforcement record were not isolated mistakes or occasional clerical errors. The same deficiencies recurred across multiple cases over multiple years despite repeated hearing officer criticism, repeated notice of the defects, and repeated assurances that the process would improve. At the same time those enforcement failures were occurring publicly, senior City leadership was privately coordinating with Cal Poly leadership regarding overlay zones, zoning modifications, revised CUP structures “that work for fraternities,” and other accommodation-oriented policy changes. The two records must be viewed together. Mr. Mezzapesa’s report requested that Cal Poly’s Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities investigate whether the Recognized Student Organizations violated the Student Organization Code of Conduct, specifically provisions prohibiting failure to comply with public safety officials (Section 17) and falsification or misrepresentation of information in a discipline matter (Section 19). (See Attachment B: Kienow Email to City Leadership (Dec. 11, 2025, 3:26 PM); Kienow Email re: Joint Meeting Action Items (July 17, 2025); Kienow Email re: Next Steps (January 8, 2026); Kienow-Stewart Text (Dec. 15, 2025).) (See Attachment C: City Code Enforcement Report, December 11, 2025 (excerpts).) PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS AND LAND USE DETERMINATIONS Throughout the enforcement controversies involving fraternity operations, the Planning Commission emerged as the one governmental body consistently applying the City’s land use laws through its proceedings. Over the past year, the Planning Commission repeatedly concluded that fraternity operations were detrimental to surrounding residential neighborhoods and incompatible with residential living. Conditional Use Permits were consistently revoked, based on the same findings that there were no sets of conditions that would protect the health, safety and well-being of the residents in the neighborhoods. The Commission’s decisions established that fraternity operations produced impacts that are incompatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods even within higher density zoning districts where fraternity uses are conditionally permitted. Those findings are important because they directly intersect with the policy discussions now occurring regarding fraternity accommodation, overlay zone concepts, and zoning restructuring to allow fraternities to operate within residential neighborhoods. While the Planning Commission was concluding that fraternity operations were detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the residential neighborhoods, senior City and Cal Poly leadership were privately discussing future approaches intended to identify zoning and policy outcomes that would “work for fraternities.” That tension runs throughout the records produced by the City. On one side of the City’s governance structure, the Planning Commission was developing an increasingly substantial evidentiary record documenting recurring neighborhood impacts and incompatibility findings. On another side of the governance structure, City and Cal Poly leadership were discussing future accommodation-oriented approaches while those same enforcement proceedings remained ongoing and were not effective in obtaining abatement through a series of mistakes and inefficiencies within Code Enforcement. The records therefore raise an important policy question for the Council. 15 The Planning Commission has repeatedly concluded that fraternity operations were incompatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods even under existing permit structures, therefore, on what evidentiary basis would the City now move toward zoning approaches that accommodate fraternity operations involving those same residential neighborhoods? The Commission’s findings also intersect directly with the City’s General Plan which lists policies that emphasize neighborhood compatibility, protection of residential character, and prevention of incompatible land uses within residential neighborhoods. The Planning Commission’s findings reinforced those policies by repeatedly concluding that fraternity operations generated impacts incompatible with surrounding residential uses. Those findings become particularly important if the City is now considering overlay zones for fraternity operations, modified CUP structures, or other accommodation-oriented approaches that would effectively normalize longstanding unlawful fraternity operations within residential neighborhoods. The concern raised by the City’s records is that accommodation-oriented discussions for Cal Poly’s fraternities to operate within the City’s neighborhoods appear to have developed while longstanding enforcement failures remained unresolved and while the City’s own quasi-adjudicative body was repeatedly concluding that fraternity operations were incompatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. On April 16, 2026, the neighborhood representative on the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) asked if a zoning overlay for fraternity use was being considered within the neighborhoods and City Manager Whitney McDonald said that it was not. On April 24, 2026, the Board of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) met with Community Development Director Timmi Tway regarding potential discussions of overlay zones to accommodate fraternities within residential neighborhoods, and she would not commit to whether those discussions were happening. On May 17, 2026, the neighborhood representative on the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) mentioned continued concern about a potential overlay zone and City Manager Whitney McDonald finally admitted that it would be presented as an option during the May 26, 2026 study session, contrary to her statements a month earlier when she said it was not being considered. The idea of an overlay zone that would allow fraternity use is incompatible with the General Plan and the Planning Commission’s multiple findings. The Planning Commission revoked fraternity permits because it concluded that the fraternity operations were incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods, detrimental to the health, safety and welfare or the neighborhoods, and that no set of conditions could adequately protect neighborhood from harm. An overlay zone that allows fraternity use does not resolve those findings. It instead shifts the City away from a conditional enforcement policy grounded in compatibility determinations and toward a system that effectively permits the same uses and impacts that were found to be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and led to revocation in the first place. The City’s General Plan, Land Use Element provides the applicable policy direction for fraternities to be located on campus. An overlay zone that expands permitted areas would be difficult to reconcile with this policy. It also directs the City to promote livability, quiet enjoyment, and safety for all residents, and highlights that one characteristic of a quality neighborhood includes a sense of personal safety. (LUE Policy 2.2.6). It also encourages the City to work with residents to address neighborhood specific 16 issues. (LUE Policy 2.2.1) Additionally, Goal 7 of the Housing Element (Neighborhood Quality) is to maintain, preserve, and enhance the quality and livability of neighborhoods. The appropriate response to the known detrimental impacts, including those documented by the Planning Commission’s findings, is not to pull back on enforcement of the laws that protect the neighborhoods, or to adapt the City’s laws to accommodate a use that has been formally determined incompatible and harmful. The Council’s job is to uphold the General Plan and protect the neighborhoods. The issue of accommodation of Cal Poly’s fraternities should not be the City’s problem to solve. It is Cal Poly’s issue. Cal Poly now has the largest number of IFC fraternity members within the CSU and UC systems, yet has failed to provide any housing infrastructure to accommodate. Cal Poly relies on the City’s neighborhoods to absorb the negative impacts of the use, which has repeatedly been found to be detrimental - from our own Planning Commission. Courts have also recognized the unique, adverse impacts of a fraternity on the surrounding neighborhood. (See Long Beach v. California Lambda Chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity; also, Pettis v. Alpha Alpha Chapter of Phi Beta Pi) The City’s primary obligation is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people who live in its neighborhoods. When the interests of Cal Poly and the livability of residential neighborhoods conflict, the Council’s responsibility is to place the interests of the City’s residents first. Although the City cannot force Cal Poly to do anything, it also must not sacrifice the well-being of its neighborhoods to accommodate Cal Poly’s fraternities. Additionally, Cal Poly and the IFC fraternities made a commitment in 2013 to explore a Greek row on campus in exchange for expansion of IFC fraternity membership under an agreement called the Deferred Recruitment Compromise. Cal Poly has expanded fraternity recruitment and membership since the agreement, inviting at least five new fraternities to join its campus and expanded the membership of Greek life to exceed any other California State University (CSU) and University of California (UC) campuses. As enrollment has grown, nearly 20% of Cal Poly’s students are in Greek Life. It does not make sense that the City should have to absorb the impacts of fraternity operations within residential neighborhoods. It will never be “convenient” for Cal Poly to accommodate its fraternities, and the issue will only be solved when they decide it is important for the fraternities to have a Greek row or other housing accommodations that are managed by the university. The City cannot shoulder the burden of hosting the highest IFC membership concentration of any university town in California. While a handful of Midwest 'flagship' universities have higher aggregate density, they manage that impact through university-controlled housing districts that are not adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Based on significant research, it appears San Luis Obispo is the only city of its size in the nation attempting to absorb 1,500 recognized IFC fraternity members entirely within residential neighborhood zoning without an on-campus structure to manage its own fraternities. Approximately 18-20% of Cal Poly students are involved in Greek life. Sororities and other guests go to the fraternity houses to attend parties. This has resulted in extreme disruption to the neighborhoods impacted by approximately 10-15 separate fraternity parties nearly every weekend of the academic year. The City cannot turn its back on its residents and reduce enforcement of these illegal fraternity properties that have overtaken the neighborhoods and significantly reduced the safety and livability of those neighborhoods. 17 PRIVATE COORDINATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF FRATERNITY POLICY APPROACHES The records establish that in July 2025, very shortly after the Grand Jury report was published on June 23, 2025, senior City leadership and Cal Poly leadership engaged in an ongoing coordination process regarding fraternity housing, enforcement, zoning, and future policy approaches. Participants included: From the City: City Manager, Whitney McDonald; Assistant City Manager, Scott Collins; Deputy City Manager, Greg Hermann; and Community Development Director, Timmi Tway. From Cal Poly: Cal Poly’s Office of the President, Courtney Kienow; Dean of Student, Joy Pederson; Director of Leadership & Service (overseeing Greek Life) Jason Mockford; Student Affairs, and V. P. Enrollment Management and Student Affairs, Terrance Harris. According to emails circulated among City and Cal Poly leadership, discussions included the illegal fraternity operations within the neighborhoods, with “Cal Poly’s asks” for an overlay zone to accommodate fraternities, a Greek row, zoning code amendments, new CUP approaches that would “work for fraternities.” Other records discuss benchmarking against other university towns, reevaluating portions of the Municipal Code, and developing future policy approaches regarding fraternity operations within the neighborhoods. The main problem with this approach is that no other university town compares to the unique situation in San Luis Obispo because it has the highest number of fraternity members within the state CSU and UC system with the one of the smallest host cities. This is covered later in this report. There is also no separation between the lower density and higher density neighborhoods, and the Planning Commission has already found that fraternities operating in the highest density R-4 zone are detrimental to the health, safety and well-being of the residents who live nearby. During the time of the meetings and discussions between City and Cal Poly leadership, the City was preparing its response to the Grand Jury’s report, fraternity enforcement controversies remained unresolved, Planning Commission revocation proceedings were actively occurring, and residents continued reporting recurring neighborhood impacts associated with fraternity activity. The records therefore suggest that two parallel processes were occurring simultaneously. One process involved Code Enforcement investigations, Planning Commission hearings, resident complaints, and formal incompatibility findings regarding fraternity operations within residential neighborhoods. The other process involved ongoing coordination between City and Cal Poly leadership regarding future accommodation-oriented policy approaches involving those same fraternity operations and neighborhoods. While cooperation between a university and its host city is both expected and necessary, the concern is that important boundaries between enforcement, policymaking, institutional advocacy, and adjudicative independence became increasingly unclear during a period when the City was simultaneously investigating unlawful fraternity operations, conducting quasi-judicial hearings related to CUP revocations, and exploring future approaches to accommodate fraternities within the neighborhoods with the institution whose students and affiliated organizations were at the center of the adversity and disruptions within those neighborhoods. The records also show that Cal Poly leadership was not acting as a neutral institutional participant concerned with student welfare or university operations. Instead of providing housing on its own 18 campus, such as a Greek Village, Cal Poly representatives discussed future zoning and policy within the City to accommodate its fraternities. In some instances, communications suggest frustration from the mayor that fraternity organizations did not receive stronger support from Cal Poly during public proceedings before her and the Council. Other communications indicate that City and Cal Poly officials viewed themselves as collaboratively working toward future “solutions” and “outcomes” that would accommodate Cal Poly’s fraternities within the City. Those records raise broader governance concerns regarding the degree to which City policymaking remained institutionally independent during the development of fraternity-related policy approaches to accommodate the fraternities within the City rather than insisting that Cal Poly take responsibility for its fraternities within its own campus. It appears that the City’s policymaking process became too closely aligned with the institutional priorities of Cal Poly and affiliated fraternity organizations during a period when many residents continued experiencing unresolved neighborhood impacts and ongoing unlawful fraternity activity. Those policies also conflict with the City’s General Plan and the Planning Commission’s repeated findings over the past year. NOISE COMPLAINTS TO SLOPD Over the past decade, noise calls to SLOPD have increased. The graphic below was prepared by SLOPD and shows the high concentration of noisy party complaints in the neighborhoods where Cal Poly’s fraternities operate. It should also be noted that most unruly gathering citations are issued to fraternities, including those operating unlawfully in residential neighborhoods. Based on these noise complaints, it is obvious that help is needed in these neighborhoods so that they become more livable for all residents, and more consistent with other residential neighborhoods within the City. Over multiple months, I prepared reports for you to show the impact of fraternities on the neighborhoods, using the SLOPD dispatch logs and comparing them to documented fraternity properties. The largest, most disruptive parties and most unruly gatherings were at documented fraternity properties that were operating illegally or in violation of their Conditional Use Permit. SLOPD has a party registration program that allows parties to register and if someone calls to report the noisy party, the party host will receive a warning from SLOPD dispatch to quiet down within 20 19 minutes. Those complaints for noisy parties when the parties are registered are coded by SLOPD as “citizen assist” therefore are not included in the annual noisy party statistics. For example, in 2025, there were 353 registered parties and 50 people called to complain about those parties (shown in red at the top of the blue bar in 2025). Those 50 calls are not included in SLOPD’s annual noisy party calls. The noise complaints for the past decade are shown below, which illustrates that noise calls are at the highest point in a decade. It is not known how many noisy party complaints were made for parties between the time the program was adopted in 2017 and 2024. SAN LUIS OBISPO IS A STRUCTURAL OUTLIER San Luis Obispo is not experiencing a typical college-town condition. The combination of factors present here is not replicated in any comparable university community. Cal Poly maintains the largest Interfraternity Council (IFC) membership in the CSU and UC system with approximately 1,500 members while operating within one of the smallest host cities, with a projected population in 2026 of approximately 51,000 residents. This produces the highest concentration of fraternity membership per capita among other university communities by a very wide margin. At peer institutions where large fraternity systems exist, one or more of the following conditions apply that do not apply in San Luis Obispo: • On-campus or university-controlled fraternity housing • A significantly larger host city population • A lower total fraternity membership • Established mechanisms to locate fraternity activity outside residential neighborhoods None of these conditions exist in San Luis Obispo. Cal Poly has no on-campus fraternity housing, no university-controlled Greek row, or any other housing for Greek life. Instead, 18 fraternities operate through a network of residential properties, both with and without permits, in the City’s residential neighborhoods. Currently there are over 60 documented fraternity houses that host fraternity parties. The following data, drawn from 2026 population projections and AB 524 IFC membership reports, provides a direct system-wide comparison: 20 CSU Campus Host City City Population IFC Active Members Per 1,000 Residents Cal Poly SLO San Luis Obispo 50,998 1,489 29.20 Cal Poly Humboldt Arcata 18,857 61 3.23 Sonoma State Rohnert Park 44,390 122 2.75 CSU Chico Chico 102,722 251 2.44 CSU San Marcos San Marcos 97,461 215 2.21 Cal Poly Pomona Pomona 146,416 312 2.11 CSU Long Beach Long Beach 443,555 570 1.29 CSU Stanislaus Turlock 72,502 85 1.17 CSU Monterey Bay Seaside 31,118 35 1.12 CSU Dominguez Hills Carson 89,326 90 1.01 Fresno State Fresno 553,800 510 0.92 CSU Fullerton Fullerton 138,382 111 0.80 San Diego State San Diego 1,414,266 1,023 0.72 San José State San Jose 991,209 359 0.36 CSU Channel Islands Camarillo 69,673 25 0.36 CSU San Bernardino San Bernardino 226,103 75 0.33 Sacramento State Sacramento 540,907 174 0.32 CSU East Bay Hayward 158,440 44 0.28 SF State San Francisco 803,876 130 0.16 CSU Northridge Los Angeles 3,869,891 509 0.13 CSU Bakersfield Bakersfield 423,592 22 0.05 CSU Los Angeles Los Angeles 3,869,891 100 0.03 Maritime Academy Vallejo 120,412 None 0.00 Sources: 2026 population projections; AB 524 reports of active members in the Interfraternity Council (IFC). San Luis Obispo's fraternity density of 29.20 per 1,000 residents is more than nine times higher than the next closest campus, Cal Poly Humboldt at 3.23 per 1,000, and 28 times higher than the CSU system average. Sonoma State (Rohnert Park), with a host city population of 44,390, manages 143 IFC members at 3.22 per 1,000 residents. Cal Poly Humboldt (Arcata), with an even smaller host city of 18,857 residents, has 61 IFC members at 3.23 per 1,000. Both campuses demonstrate that small host city size does not produce the concentration seen in San Luis Obispo. The issue is not being a small college town but is an extreme over-concentration of a specific high- impact land use with no on-campus infrastructure to manage it. 21 Cal Poly has no Greek row or Greek village and does not provide housing for its fraternities, even though it has the largest IFC membership of any other CSU or UC campus. Instead, Cal Poly’s 18 IFC fraternities operate through a network of residential properties in the City’s residential neighborhoods. Cal Poly has continued to expand fraternity membership and recruit new chapters without implementing any corresponding housing infrastructure or any mechanism to locate fraternity events outside residential neighborhoods. The result is a system uniquely concentrated relative to the size of the surrounding community, and uniquely dependent on residential neighborhoods to absorb the impacts. This is the condition that needs enforcement to prevent ongoing harm to the residential neighborhoods. It is also a condition that an overlay zone would formalize, contrary to the General Plan and Planning Commission findings, and it is not something that San Luis Obispo should accommodate within its residential neighborhoods. Even among UC campuses, Cal Poly still stands out as an outlier compared to the residential population of the host city. The Structural Outlier (Total Scale vs. City Size) The dual-axis chart above illustrates why San Luis Obispo's situation is structurally different from every other campus in the comparison. Two data points make this clear. The blue bars show total IFC membership. Cal Poly SLO's 1,489 active members exceeds the total membership of larger schools including CSU Chico, CSU Fullerton, and Sonoma State, and is even larger than San Diego State's 1,023 members and UC Berkeley's 1,300 members whose campuses are located in cities of 1.4 million and 124,000 residents respectively. 22 The red line shows concentration of IFC members per 1,000 residents, making the structural difference obvious. The red line's spike over Cal Poly SLO and its near-flat trajectory across every other campus is the visual expression of that gap. The result is a big-city fraternity system operating on a small-town residential map with no on-campus infrastructure to manage it and no mechanism to locate events outside residential neighborhoods. San Diego State and UC Berkeley have large fraternity systems, but those systems operate with infrastructure that San Luis Obispo lacks. San Diego State constructed a purpose-built Fraternity Row in 2002 adjacent to its arena, later expanding to a second phase in 2016 that now houses 33 Greek organizations in a university-managed complex. This is the kind of campus-based solution Cal Poly committed to exploring in 2013 and has never built. Berkeley established its Greek row 80 years ago and it is surrounded by a dense urban environment with high-rise buildings up to 11 stories tall. That level of density and infrastructure does not exist in San Luis Obispo and would not be consistent with the City’s General Plan. The Relative Intensity Chart The chart below removes individual campus variables to show the structural gap in systemic terms. Rather than comparing individual campuses, it aggregates the data into three groups - other CSU campuses, comparable UC campuses, and Cal Poly SLO - to measure relative intensity directly. The CSU average of 1.04 members per 1,000 residents and the UC comparison average of 6.32 members per 1,000 residents establish the baseline. Cal Poly SLO at 29.20 per 1,000 residents is 28 times higher than the CSU average and 4.6 times higher than the UC comparison average using the campuses in the first chart. The vertical multiplier markers show that gap. The concentration at Cal Poly SLO is not a marginal deviation from the norm. It is a mathematical anomaly with no parallel in the CSU or UC systems. The 1-in-34 Reality (Concentration) Most people assume that every college town feels the same, but the data proves this is false. 23 In a typical CSU city like Chico, there is roughly 1 fraternity member for every 409 residents. In San Diego, home to San Diego State's large Greek system, there is 1 fraternity member for every 1,382 residents. Even UC Santa Barbara, a campus frequently cited as a peer institution, has 1 fraternity member for every 137 residents. In San Luis Obispo, there is 1 fraternity member for every 34 residents. San Luis Obispo's neighborhoods are being asked to absorb 12 times more fraternity impact per resident than Chico, and 40 times more than San Diego. Even compared to UC Santa Barbara, the concentration in San Luis Obispo is four times higher, and Santa Barbara’s fraternities are isolated in the Isla Vista area, which would not be compatible with San Luis Obispo’s General Plan. What feels like a party in San Diego feels like an invasion in San Luis Obispo because the density is not remotely comparable. CUPs and FRATERNITY EVENTS Aside from noise complaints made to SLOPD and/or noise citations issued, Conditional Use Permit limits were routinely exceeded by multiples according to Cal Poly’s fraternity event registration documents for events held in 2025, with most events exceeding 100 people. Fraternity CUP Limit Registered Attendance Outcome Delta Chi 53 persons 200–250 attendees Revoked Lambda Chi Alpha 48 persons 100–200 attendees Revoked Delta Upsilon 21 persons 100–150 attendees Revoked Alpha Epsilon Pi 25 persons 80–160 attendees Revoked Sigma Nu 19 persons 80–100+ attendees Revoked Phi Kappa Psi (remaining) 17 persons 100–150 attendees Active The sole remaining CUP, Phi Kappa Psi at 1335 E. Foothill Boulevard, limits gatherings to 17 people. Cal Poly event registration records show repeated approval of events with guest lists of 100–150 attendees at that location. The pattern of noncompliance is system wide. The property also has a history of noise complaints to SLOPD and some noise citations, although it has not been recommended for re-review by the Planning Commission. Cal Poly’s own event registration records document that its 18 fraternities held over 325 events in 2025, averaging 18 events per fraternity. (See Attachment A: Spreadsheets of Fraternity Events Registered by Cal Poly during 2025.) DOORLIST SHOWS MANY LARGE WEEKEND FRATERNITY EVENTS According to documentation on DoorList which is an app used by Cal Poly’s fraternities to post events and track guest lists, during a single weekend in February 2026 there were 15 documented fraternity events with expected attendance ranging from 250 to over 600 people per event. These large 24 gatherings are commonplace every weekend during the academic year, beginning on Thursday night and continuing through the weekend. The disturbances are supported by the high concentration of noise complaints tied to known fraternity locations according to SLOPD’s records. This is not a compliance problem that a change of zoning can solve. The Planning Commission’s findings establish that the problem is the scale and nature of the use itself. An overlay zone that formalizes fraternity use in residential neighborhoods would functionally overturn these findings without addressing the conditions that produced them and would also be inconsistent with the General Plan, which serves as the Constitution of the City. DECEMBER 11 RECORD Public records establish a sequence of events that raise questions about how the more permissive overlay zone concept to accommodate fraternities entered the City’s policy process. Date / Time Event Significance December 11, 2025 9:54 AM City Code Enforcement Supervisor John Mezzapesa transmits 300-page report to Cal Poly leadership and the Office of the President representative, Courtney Kienow Documents 64 illegal events at 45 locations over one weekend; IFC President advised fraternities to withhold information from city code enforcement official; 100+ staff hours expended on rush weekend events due to Cal Poly’s non-cooperation; vast majority of fraternity members lied to city officials about documented events December 11, 2025 3:26 PM Cal Poly’s Office of the President representative Kienow emails multiple members of City leadership Without acknowledging the morning’s enforcement report, redirects joint meeting agenda toward her July 17, 2025 email that highlights “Cal Poly asks of the City” for an overlay zone exploration, Greek row zoning, CUP modifications “that work for fraternities,” and City code re-evaluation for upcoming meeting on December 17 December 15, 2025 Kienow contacts Mayor Stewart directly via text message for meeting Coordinates meeting with mayor for December 17. The City’s code enforcement report sent to the Office of the President and Cal Poly leadership documents organized obstruction of a city investigation. Within hours of receiving it, Cal Poly’s Office of the President redirected City leadership toward regulatory accommodation for the university and its fraternities within the residential neighborhoods. Four days later, Cal Poly’s representative and the mayor directly coordinated a private meeting about the issue. Records show frequent, ongoing coordination between the mayor and Kienow related to fraternities and neighborhood issues, with the mayor seeming to align with Cal Poly’s position instead of the residents living in the neighborhoods. Based on the timing, the Mezzapesa code enforcement report documents that the IFC President at a Cal Poly on campus fall rush recruitment event, physically moved from booth to booth advising fraternity representatives not to share Rush Schedule Cards with a city code enforcement official who was conducting an investigation. This constitutes conduct that interfered with a government investigation on Cal Poly’s campus. 25 During that same IFC fall rush recruitment event, the code enforcement official was subjected to severe harassment that rose to the level of criminal conduct, which reportedly resulted in a report filed with SLOPD. She was targeted because she was doing her job. This behavior is consistent with a documented pattern of harassment directed at others who have reported noisy fraternity parties, complained to a fraternity’s landlord, or advocated for enforcement of the City’s zoning ordinance. Harassment (especially towards women), vandalism, and other behavior have intimidated some neighbors into silence, even afraid to call SLOPD to report a party, or they have moved away from the neighborhood. A city employee conducting an official investigation is not immune from that pattern. A Council member was also targeted online following the Delta Chi appeal denial when a screenshot of her was taken from the meeting and posted, with demeaning comments about her personal appearance. The ongoing harassment is not incidental to the underlying land use problem. It is a direct consequence of the perceived entitlement that has developed in the absence of consistent enforcement of fraternity operations over the years. To abandon those efforts would promote the ongoing entitlement of illegal use and nuisance properties that have overtaken the City’s residential neighborhoods and contribute to deteriorating living conditions in the residential neighborhoods. City records show that over the course of two years, repeated mistakes were made by Code Enforcement, wasting hundreds of hours of resources and causing the code cases to go nowhere and remain unresolved while the unlawful fraternity operations continue to operate within the residential neighborhoods. The City’s Hearing Officer issued scathing criticism of the Code Enforcement record and dismissed cases because of clerical errors or because the City failed to even attempt to state a case. Multiple cases and administrative fines were dismissed because of recurring errors by the Code Enforcement staff. WINTER RUSH RECRUITMENT EVENT – JANUARY 15, 2026 The December 11 record is not an isolated incident. A closely related exchange occurred one month later. On January 14, 2026 - one day before the on-campus IFC winter rush recruitment event scheduled for January 15, 2026 - Courtney Kienow texted Community Development Director Timmi Tway: “Hi, I’m with students now and they’re wondering if code enforcement has plans to come to any of their on campus events in the next few weeks?” Ms. Tway responded: “No” and “They do not” (See Attachment D: Tway - Kienow text.) 26 This exchange shows that Cal Poly’s Office of the President, while sitting with fraternity members, obtained real-time confirmation from the City’s Community Development Director that Code Enforcement would not be present at upcoming rush events. Rush events are a primary mechanism by which fraternities distribute event location information, including Rush Schedule Cards containing addresses of fraternity houses operating in violation of the city municipal code. During fall rush 2025, covering only one weekend’s events, the City spent over 100 hours of staff time across three weeks to document 64 illegal events at 45 illegal locations because Cal Poly had denied the City’s requests for event address data and because fraternities had been directed not to share Rush Schedule Cards with a city investigator. A city code enforcement officer was severely harassed during that investigation. The January 14 text exchange raises the question of institutional accountability. Did advance confirmation that code enforcement would not attend the winter rush event allow fraternity members to distribute Rush Schedule Cards identifying locations of events that violate City zoning code? This is the same information the City spent over 100 hours attempting to document during fall rush. The taxpayers of San Luis Obispo funded that 100+ hour investigation. The public record suggests that a subsequent text exchange between Cal Poly’s office of the president and a City department director effectively clarified that enforcement would not be present for those organizing rush events in advance of those events, therefore, the fraternities could distribute the illegal fraternity locations with impunity. A clear pattern has emerged from public records. Cal Poly obtains enforcement information while withholding the locations of its fraternity events. Fraternities operate in violation of the municipal code without real-time interference. Code Enforcement expends resources which are hampered by Cal Poly’s lack of cooperation and ongoing clerical errors and other inefficiencies within Code Enforcement that consistently result in Code cases being dismissed internally or by the Hearing Officer. Fraternities continue to operate illegally, making the neighborhoods “almost unlivable” for those who live there. This is not sustainable and is not consistent with the City’s obligation according to the General Plan to protect its residential neighborhoods. It is also not consistent with the City Manager’s response to the Presiding Judge and the Grand Jury. GRAND JURY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury made multiple findings and recommendations to the City. Most relevant to the “Code Enforcement” conversation is the following: 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 of illegal fraternities holding events in residential neighborhoods making these areas almost unlivable for most residents. City’s Response: Finding 3: This City disagrees with this finding…The City enforces municipal code provisions that prohibit fraternity and sorority activity in R-1 and R-2 zones and addresses behaviors that constitute neighborhood nuisances or other code violations…Consistent with standard code enforcement practices, zoning enforcement related to fraternity or sorority activity is complaint-driven. Since November 2023, the City has investigated over 100 complaints and opened 42 enforcement cases related to unpermitted fraternity activity or conditional use permit violations. Additionally, the City proactively issued advisory notices to 33 suspected fraternity or sorority houses in R-1 and R-2 zones to clarify zoning restrictions. 27 Recommendation 3: The SLO City Manager should develop and implement an ongoing formal process to identify illegal fraternities and bring them into compliance. City’s Response, Recommendation 3: This recommendation has been implemented. Through the code enforcement process, the City has identified properties that are suspected to house fraternities, in locations not allowed by the City’s zoning ordinance or have been proven to house illegal fraternities. …When events occur at these houses that violate the Municipal Code, the code enforcement team follows City standards and practices to notify occupants and property owners of violations and assess fines for non-compliance, as dictated by City regulations. Fines and enforcement actions escalate if repeat events occur that are found to violate the Municipal Code. The records show that the City has not meaningfully enforced its zoning ordinance, and it appears that unlawful fraternity properties have expanded throughout the City’s neighborhoods since the Grand Jury investigation. The record suggests the enforcement failures are rooted in many inefficiencies and mistakes made by Code Enforcement, as well as a misunderstanding of what constitutes the evidence necessary to prove a case. If Code Enforcement followed the process, issued administrative citations without clerical errors and supported evidence of the citation, the cases would be much further along, and the illegal use potentially would have stopped at many of the illegal fraternity properties. At this point, more than two years into the enforcement, most illegal fraternity properties that continue to hold fraternity parties should have been abated. Instead, the number of illegal fraternities has increased. That is not bringing illegal fraternities into compliance, as recommended by the Grand Jury. The Council should examine the enforcement records and ask why long-time fraternity houses that are operating illegally throughout residential neighborhoods have not been brought into compliance. PROCESS INTEGRITY The overlay zone concept was first introduced publicly in the Grand Jury's June 2025 report as Recommendation R4, which called on the City Council to "initiate a task force to explore the creation of a 'Student Overlay Zone' near the campus." The Grand Jury recommendation was to explore the concept through a transparent, publicly noticed task force process with full community stakeholder participation. The City declined to implement R4 in its September 2025 formal response to the Presiding Judge, stating it was not reasonable at that time. But the City’s response cited stabilization zones in Los Angeles and Santa Clara, which are protective of the neighborhoods to promote a higher quality of life. Those overlays are not allow impacts that would potentially harm the neighborhood. As shown earlier in the report, just weeks after of the Grand Jury report's publication, and before the City had filed its formal response to the Grand Jury, Cal Poly's Office of the President had already introduced the overlay zone concept into private, joint City-Cal Poly discussions, framed explicitly around accommodation and regulatory outcomes that would “work for fraternities.” The July 17, 2025 email from Courtney Kienow to City leadership identifies Cal Poly's asks as CUPs redesigned around what works for fraternities, overlay zone exploration, Greek row zoning, and re- evaluation of City municipal codes relevant to that conversation. This occurred before the City had formally responded to the Grand Jury, before any public process had been established, and through a private joint meeting structure in which Cal Poly was simultaneously the institution whose affiliated organizations were the subject of ongoing violations and the party shaping the policy response to those violations. 28 This framing effectively reversed the intent of the Grand Jury’s recommendations, which criticized the City for not enforcing its zoning laws and for the current conditions of the impacted neighborhoods, which it determined to be “almost unlivable for most residents.” The Grand Jury contemplated neutral exploration of an overlay zone through a structured public process, and its own cited examples included zones designed to protect neighborhoods from exactly the kind of encroachment that has been formally documented here. Cal Poly immediately operationalized the concept as a vehicle for regulatory accommodation of fraternity use in the City’s residential neighborhoods. Public records demonstrate that the overlay zone conversation that would accommodate fraternity use emerged from a joint City–Cal Poly meeting process behind closed doors, in which Cal Poly’s Office of the President played a central coordinating role. Records show that Cal Poly: • Proposed specific regulatory approaches, including overlay zone exploration and a Greek row within the City’s neighborhoods • Framed policy objectives explicitly in terms of what would ‘work for fraternities’ • Documented and tracked City commitments to explore accommodations for Cal Poly’s fraternities The Grand Jury’s Recommendation R4 suggested a formal City-led task force to explore overlay zone options. The report also emphasized overall there should be more community stakeholder involvement. The City declined to implement that recommendation in its September 2025 response to the Grand Jury and the Presiding Judge of San Luis Obispo County. However, records show the overlay concept continued to be advanced through joint City-Cal Poly discussions beginning in July 2025, just weeks after the Grand Jury report was published, through a process that was not publicly disclosed, although it appears the City Manager briefed the Council. The Grand Jury contemplated a transparent task force process. What occurred was an ongoing policy development process conducted between City leadership and Cal Poly administration, directed by Cal Poly, whose institution has a direct interest in the regulatory outcome. The proposed policy favors ongoing fraternity events in residential neighborhoods to the detriment of the City’s neighborhoods and residents. No records were produced by the City documenting the substance of key meetings between City leadership and Cal Poly representatives during this period. However, the limited records that were produced provide insight into how these discussions occurred in practice. Text message communications between Mayor Erica Stewart and Courtney Kienow document a pattern of frequent, informal coordination outside formal City processes. These communications include repeated references to in-person meetings arranged directly between Ms. Stewart and Ms. Kienow, including meetings at off-site locations and other one-on-one discussions that were not part of any publicly noticed process. The same communications confirm that discussions continued following key decision points, including the City Council’s denial of the Delta Chi Conditional Use Permit appeal in October 2025. In those exchanges, the Mayor and Cal Poly’s representative discuss the outcome, future engagement, and continued coordination on fraternity and neighborhood issues. These communications also reference direct involvement by the City Manager and her recent telephone meeting with Cal Poly president Jeff Armstrong and Courtney Kienow in March 2026, about neighborhoods and fraternities, while Ms. Kienow had Ms. Stewart waiting on stand-by in case further discussion was needed after the phone call, if the call with the City Manager didn’t go in Cal Poly’s favor. 29 After the call, Ms. Kienow texted Ms. Stewart that fraternity and neighborhood issues had been “worked through” with the City Manager, so Armstrong and Kienow did not need to speak with her, and Ms. Stewart then left for her meeting on Cal Poly’s campus. No corresponding records documenting those discussions were produced, such as emails, memoranda, or meeting notes about what was discussed. The texts only indicated that the conversation about “neighborhoods and fraternities” had gone well for Cal Poly. (See: Stewart – Kienow texts) The text communications also reflect an inconsistency in Cal Poly’s role. While Ms. Kienow says that Cal Poly’s legal counsel has taken the position that fraternity-related matters should be handled solely between the organizations and the City, she simultaneously said that she purposely maintained an active presence in the process, including attending public hearings to be “seen”, coordinating directly with City leadership, and participating in post-decision discussions. Taken together, the limited records produced confirm that policy development occurred through informal, largely undocumented channels, involving direct coordination between City leadership and Cal Poly’s Office of the President, rather than through a transparent, publicly noticed, City-led process grounded in the General Plan or Planning Commission findings. CAL POLY PROVIDED A “FAQ” MEMO WITH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS & POTENTIAL FRAMING OF THE CITY’S ANSWERS TO THE GRAND JURY BEFORE WITNESS INTERVIEWS This is consistent with a pattern at the outset of the Grand Jury investigation. In mid-October, during an active Grand Jury investigation, Courtney Kienow, Director of Community Relations and Economic Development in Cal Poly’s Office of the President, emailed a “Fraternity & Sorority Life FAQs” document to City Manager Whitney McDonald. The cover email read: Here you go Whitney. Believe it or not, this is the fastest document we’ve ever gotten approvals for and out! *winking emoji*— Kienow, email to McDonald, October 15, 2024 This FAQ memo was sent before requested City staff, and a Council member were interviewed by the Grand Jury. Ms. McDonald then forwarded the memo to City Council, saying the it “contained some interesting positions.” One of the questions presented in Kienow’s FAQ document was, “Which fraternities are illegal?” Her proposed answer: “Illegal fraternity” is an inaccurate colloquialism. The Constitution of the United States of America is clear about the 1st Amendment right to freedom of association. In addition, the organizations in question are recognized at the state and/or federal level as 501(c)(3) organizations. — Cal Poly FAQ, October 15, 2024 This claim is legally incorrect and has been rejected by the Supreme Court and California Appellate Courts. What the Supreme Court held In Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974), the Supreme Court upheld an ordinance specifically excluding fraternity houses from a residential zone, rejecting the First Amendment association challenge brought by college students. The Court found: “[F]raternity 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 police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out zones where … the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people. — Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9 (1974) The First Amendment argument was rejected and this decision has never been overruled. 30 What the California Court of Appeal held In City of Long Beach v. California Lambda Chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity, 255 Cal.App.2d 789 (1967), the California Court of Appeal affirmed a city injunction against fraternities operating in a residential zone without permits, rejecting every constitutional challenge including the First Amendment freedom of association: The zoning ordinance does not constitute a restraint upon the exercise of a use, but upon the use itself. A fraternity member can reside in an R-4 zone but he cannot reside in a fraternity house in an R-4 zone. — City of Long Beach v. California Lambda Chapter, 255 Cal.App.2d 789, 798 (1967) The court recognized exactly what some residents in SLO experience every weekend: fraternity house operations generate increased traffic, “frequent gatherings with attendant boisterous conduct” including “rush parties, dances, and rallies” that are categorically different from ordinary residential use and that cities have full authority to regulate. This decision is binding precedent in California. The 501(c)(3) argument Federal tax classification has no bearing on whether a local government may restrict the use of residential property. Churches, hospitals, food banks, and political organizations all hold 501(c)(3) status. None acquires immunity from zoning regulation as a result. This argument has no basis in law. What “illegal fraternity” means A fraternity operating in an R-1 or R-2 zone, or in an R-3 or R-4 zone without a conditional use permit in San Luis Obispo is operating illegally because of what it is doing with the land, not because of who it is. The First Amendment has nothing to do with it. The issue is the use of the land. Stewart’s public statements repeated the Kienow FAQ The constitutional framing contained in Kienow’s memo subsequently appeared in Council members’ public statements at SCLC and City Council. In a November 2025 Mustang News article, Mayor Stewart was quoted: “It’s not a real word… The illegal part is based on our municipal code, where we have a fraternity house that may not be following the code. However, we also have a code that says you can’t have your trash can in a certain place. You don’t become an illegal house because you have your trash can in a certain place.” — Erica Stewart, Mustang News, November 12, 2025 Stewart also suggested that the consistency of fraternity and party-related complaints had produced a spike in day-to-day noise complaints about ordinary neighborhood activity specifically citing 8-year-olds playing basketball and quinceañera celebrations as examples of what residents were now reporting. She concluded: "People get to make some noise." The claim that party-related noise has resulted in an increase in day-to-day noise complaints is not supported by any data, staff report, or documented complaint analysis in the public record. Stewart cited no source for her statement that resident complaints had expanded to capture ordinary residential activity. A Code Enforcement report drafted by Code Enforcement Supervisor, and sent to Cal Poly on December 11, 2025, documents 64 events at 45 locations requiring over 100 staff hours for a single rush weekend. SLOPD's own records show noise complaints concentrated at known fraternity 31 addresses, and most unruly gatherings are issued at addresses documented to be fraternity properties. DoorList app documentation (which Cal Poly fraternities use to post events and track guests lists) from a single February 2026 weekend shows 15 fraternity events with expected attendance ranging from 238 to 609 people confirming they were going to the fraternity parties. That is not the complaint profile of a diffuse, hypersensitive reporting culture. It is a concentrated enforcement problem at documented fraternity locations, which Cal Poly has refused to confirm, despite requests from the City. The rhetorical function of the basketball and quinceañera statement, read alongside the trash can analogy, completes a two-part move that minimizes the severity of documented violations on one side and delegitimizes the complainants on the other. Both narratives serve the same function, making the enforcement record appear less serious and less credible than it actually is. Both originated with the framing Cal Poly transmitted to the City Manager in October 2024, and neither is consistent with the documented record. There is a clear parallel to the Kienow FAQ. Both characterize the “illegal fraternity” framing as inaccurate. Both minimize the seriousness of documented violations. Stewart analogized fraternity operations - which make up hundreds of documented events each year, most with hundreds of attendees in residential neighborhoods - to a misplaced trash can. The Council should understand that this framing is inconsistent with established constitutional and land-use law and originated from Cal Poly’s Office of the President. The City Attorney’s office should be asked whether it reviewed or endorsed that framing before it entered the City’s deliberative process, and should clarify the legal position about what constitutes “a fraternity” within the City, and that those operations are in fact, illegal in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, and without a permit in R-3 and R-4 which require strict conditions that have consistently and routinely been ignored by those fraternities that had such permits. THE CITY’S FORMAL COMMITMENT TO THE GRAND JURY In its September 16, 2025, formal response to the Grand Jury, filed with the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, the City stated that Grand Jury Recommendation R3 (developing a formal process to identify and bring illegal fraternities into compliance) had been implemented. The City’s response identified two tasks under the Housing and Neighborhood Livability Major City Goal as mechanisms for fulfilling this commitment: • Task 4b: Conduct a study session with Council on Code Enforcement priorities related to safe and livable neighborhoods. • Task 4d: Create a project plan and standard operating procedures for Community Development enforcement of zoning code regulations pertaining to Greek houses, including consideration of potential updates to zoning code. The Regulatory Pivot: From Enforcement to Accommodation The study session associated with Task 4d was presented to the Presiding Judge and Grand Jury as part of an enforcement framework to bring illegal fraternity activity into compliance. However, the structure of Task 4d itself embeds a second pathway: modification of the underlying zoning code as an alternative to enforcement. 1. Alignment with External Influence Two months before the City filed its formal response to the Presiding Judge, internal records show that Cal Poly’s Office of the President introduced the concept of changing the City’s zoning code, providing a Greek row or an “overlay zone” that allows fraternity use, and revising CUPs for what works for fraternities, into the joint City–University discussion. 32 This proposal aligns directly with, and relies upon, the zoning modification pathway embedded in Task 4d. An enforcement commitment was made to the Court, but the policy discussion had already shifted toward regulatory changes that would accommodate the very uses identified as violations. 2. Conflict with Prior Planning Findings The City is now positioned to rely on the “zoning update” language in Task 4d to justify modifications of the zoning code and an overlay zone that would permit fraternity use in areas where the Planning Commission has already issued formal findings of incompatibility with residential zoning. Those findings were based on health, safety, and neighborhood compatibility standards which are core principles of land use law. The study session was presented as part of an enforcement effort. However, the structure of Task 4d introduces a second path—modifying the zoning code itself. That shift moves the discussion away from enforcing existing standards and toward changing those standards in response to ongoing violations. The study session associated with Task 4d was presented to the Presiding Judge and Grand Jury as part of an enforcement initiative. Using that same process to advance LESSER enforcement that allows the continuing unlawful fraternity uses throughout the neighborhoods, and the development of a permissive overlay, particularly at the request of the institution whose affiliated organizations are the subject of ongoing violations, raises serious questions as to whether the City’s implementation of Recommendation R3 is consistent with the substance of the commitment it made to the Presiding Judge and Grand Jury. The creation of an overlay zone in a residential neighborhood or expanded zoning to accommodate fraternity use would harm the nearby residents based on the documented record by the Planning Commission over the past year. Likewise, the failure to proactively protect the neighborhoods by de-prioritizing enforcement of the City’s municipal code and zoning laws is not consistent with the City’s obligations under the General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements. While the City has discretion in allocating enforcement resources, that discretion does not eliminate its obligation to implement and uphold its own Municipal Code, General Plan, and formal land use findings. The Planning Commission has already determined through multiple quasi-judicial proceedings that fraternity use is incompatible with residential neighborhoods and detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of nearby residents. Those findings are part of the City’s official land use record. A decision to substantially reduce enforcement, in light of those findings, would create a disconnect between the law and its actual enforcement practices. The City can prioritize resources, but enforcement difficulty is not the basis for effectively abandoning standards the City has already determined are necessary to protect neighborhood livability. Administrative inconvenience cannot become the basis for redefining incompatible land uses as compatible ones. GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCY The City’s General Plan adopted before the IFC membership numbers were so high, directly addresses fraternity and sorority housing. Policy 2.6.5 states: “The City shall work with Cal Poly to develop a proposal to locate fraternities and sororities on campus for consideration by the CSU Board. If locations on campus cannot be provided, fraternities and sororities should be limited to medium-high and high- density residential areas near the campus.” 33 The General Plan’s policy direction shows the preferred solution is on-campus location, and the fallback is limited to high-density zones, although fraternity use within those high-density zones has consistently been found to be incompatible with the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. An overlay zone that expands fraternity use in residential neighborhoods would be difficult to impossible to reconcile. Since 2014, when this policy was adopted, Cal Poly has continued to expand its fraternity recruitment and membership. 20% of its students are involved in Greek life, and enrollment continues to grow. There are currently 18 fraternities and next year there will be 20. Meanwhile, the City’s neighborhoods have had to bear the burden of the hundreds of fraternity parties, with hundreds of guests that happen every weekend. Additional General Plan policies reinforce the protection of the neighborhoods: • Policy 1.12.2: The City shall encourage Cal Poly to provide additional on-campus housing and to fully mitigate impacts to the quality of life of nearby neighborhoods. • Policy 2.1: The City shall preserve, protect and enhance the City’s neighborhoods and strive to preserve and enhance their quality of life. • Policy 2.3.2: The City shall seek to protect residential areas from incompatible and detrimental non-residential activities. • Policy 2.5.2: Before approving any rezoning that increases density in existing residential areas, the City shall find that neighborhood character and identity, compatibility of land use, and impacts on services are not adversely impacted. The Planning Commission’s CUP revocations constitute findings that fraternity use at its current scale fails the compatibility and neighborhood protection standards these policies require, including in R-3 and R-4 zones where it was conditionally permitted. The General Plan already provides the policies which the City needs to follow, together with the findings of the Planning Commission. THE VIABLE ALTERNATIVE: CAL POLY’S UNMET COMMITMENT The solution requires Cal Poly to fulfill commitments it has already made. Key Event Date University Stance Deferred Recruitment Compromise May 2013 Commitment to explore on-campus Greek housing in exchange for expansion of fraternity membership. St. Fratty’s Day Roof Collapse And Momentum & Visioning 2015- 2019 President Armstrong publicly champions Greek Village at Chamber of Commerce event; 2019 still active proposal in University Strategic Plan; preferred campus location identified. Fraternity continued expansion. Quiet Sidelining and Master Plan 2035 Drafts 2020- 2023 During pandemic and finalization of Master Plan 2015, project entered ‘conceptual limbo.’ No funding or architectural priority assigned; plan pivots toward general student housing (yakˈitʸutʸu) and faculty/staff housing. Fraternity continued expansion. Present: Future Housing Plan 2024– present Summer 2024, focus shifts to 10-year Future Housing Plan with modular dorms. No Greek Village proposal. Fraternity membership continues to expand. 34 Fraternity membership expanded under the Deferred Recruitment Compromise in 2013 through the present. The housing commitment was not implemented. The impacts were transferred to surrounding residential neighborhoods. (See Attachment F: Deferred Recruitment Compromise (2013).) Since then, Cal Poly has invested over one billion dollars in campus housing development using Public- Private Partnership (P3) models. It has the land, the institutional capacity, and the demonstrated financial experience to implement a campus-based fraternity housing solution. A P3 model would: • Relocate high-intensity fraternity activity to an appropriate campus setting • Provide purpose-built facilities with sound attenuation and event management infrastructure • Establish direct university oversight and accountability under the student conduct system • Relieve the City of an enforcement burden that public records show cannot be managed through residential zoning The solution is to align the location of the use with its scale, not to adapt residential neighborhoods to accommodate a use that the City’s own Planning Commission has formally determined incompatible. RECOMMENDATIONS The following requests are respectfully made to the City Council: 1. Direct staff to prioritize enforcement of unlawful fraternity operations within residential neighborhoods to promote neighborhood livability. Already, people have had to leave their homes because of the current conditions. Liability must be restored. 2. Direct staff to improve quality-control problems that have led to a waste of resources and inefficiencies within Code Enforcement. 3. Formally acknowledge the Planning Commission’s findings that fraternity use at its current scale is incompatible with residential zoning in any residential zone in San Luis Obispo. These findings are the City’s own legal record and must inform any zoning study. 4. Decline to advance resources toward studying an overlay zone that would permit, expand, or re- permit fraternity activity in residential neighborhoods, including in any zone where CUPs have been revoked. Allowing an overlay in these areas would functionally overturn the Planning Commission’s findings and reward the ongoing violations documented in the City’s own enforcement record. 5. Direct staff to formally engage Cal Poly regarding its 2013 Deferred Recruitment Compromise commitment to explore on-campus fraternity housing and request a concrete implementation plan within 180 days. 6. Ensure any future zoning study is conducted through a transparent, publicly noticed process with full community stakeholder participation, consistent with the process contemplated by Grand Jury, and not through a joint process coordinated by a party with a direct institutional interest in the outcome. CONCLUSION San Luis Obispo is not experiencing a typical college-town condition. It is experiencing an extraordinarily large IFC membership in a relatively small city, a condition that does not exist in any comparable university community. The City has already determined through formal findings that fraternity use is incompatible with residential neighborhoods, including within high-density R-4 zones where such use is conditionally 35 permitted. The Planning Commission could not make the required health, safety, and welfare findings to maintain those permits -- five separate times. If a well tests positive for contamination, and the regulatory agency raises the acceptable threshold of poison, the water isn't cleaner. The standard has just been changed or eliminated. The well is still contaminated. That is what an overlay zone accomplishes here. The Planning Commission's findings are the test results. The overlay raises, or eliminates, that threshold. And without conditional use permits, there is no longer any mechanism to test the water at all. Cal Poly has the land, the financial capacity through partnerships, and the prior commitments to provide on-campus housing for its fraternities. The City does not have land available for such a use, and its zoning framework has been formally exhausted. There is already a significant housing shortage, and there are over 50 houses in the residential neighborhoods operating illegally as fraternity houses. The appropriate policy direction is not to adapt residential neighborhoods to accommodate a use that has been found incompatible. It is to align the location of that use with its scale by holding Cal Poly accountable for the commitments and responsibility for its own fraternities, then directing the use toward a campus-based environment where it can be appropriately managed. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Spreadsheets of Fraternity Events Registered by Cal Poly during 2025. Attachment B - Public Records: Kienow Email to City Leadership (Dec. 11, 2025, 3:26 PM); Kienow Email re: Joint Meeting Action Items (July 17, 2025); Kienow Email re: Next Steps (January 8, 2026); Kienow-Stewart Text (Dec. 15, 2025). Attachment C - City Code Enforcement Report, December 11, 2025 (excerpts). Attachment D - Kienow-Tway Text (Jan. 14, 2025). Attachment E - Kienow Grand Jury Memo to City Manager McDonald w/Potential Questions and Proposed Framing for Some Answers (Oct. 15, 2024). Attachment F - Deferred Recruitment Compromise (2013). Attachment G – Kienow-Stewart Texts (Oct 2025 and March 2026) ATTACHMENT A Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California Blvd R-4 2025 Events Conditional Use Permit: Max occupancy of 25 people # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 65 2/1 Chapter 280 California Blvd 63 Rhyme without Reason 2/7 Chapter REDACTED 239 Sorority exchange with AXO, Snow theme 160 2/8 Chapter 280 California Blvd 119 Jungle party 2/12 Chapter 280 California Blvd 389 Sorority exchange with Kappa Kappa Gamma, Valentine 2/13 Chapter 280 California Blvd 394 Sorority exchange with AOII, Valentine 160 2/14 Chapter 280 California Blvd 236 Valentine’s Day party 160 2/16 Chapter 280 California Blvd 290 Boiler Room DJ party 2/19 Chapter 280 California Blvd 453 Sorority exchange with AOII 160 2/22 Chapter 280 California Blvd 418 Neon Space party 4/3 Chapter 280 California Blvd 638 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta 160 4/18 Chapter 280 California Blvd 753 Euphoria party 160 4/19 Chapter 280 California Blvd 758 Bikini Bottom party 5/14 Chapter 280 California Blvd 1038 Sorority exchange with Chi O, Denim theme 5/15 Chapter 280 California Blvd 1040 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta, Wild West 5/22 Chapter 280 California Blvd 1128 Sorority exchange with Alpha Pi, White Lotus 5/27 Chapter 280 California Blvd 1162 Sorority exchange with Sigma Kappa, White Lies 10/9 Chapter 280 California Blvd 1412 Sorority exchange with Kappa Kappa Gamma, Risky Business 80 10/11 Chapter 280 California Blvd 1344 Rhyme without Reason 10/16 Chapter 280 California Blvd 1458 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta 11/6 Chapter 280 California Blvd 1707 Sorority exchange with Alpha Phi, Mama Mia 160 11/15 Chapter 280 California Blvd 1707 Christmas party Alpha Sigma Phi 1218 Bond St R-1 2025 Events Known locations: 1218 & 1220 Bond St (R-1), 299 Albert Dr (R-1) # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 1/23 Residence Redacted Addy 74 Party Animals, sorority exchange with Kappa Kappa Gamma 80 2/8 Residence Redacted Addy 158 80s in Aspen 2/21 Residence Redacted Addy 365 Rhyme without Reason 2/27 Residence Redacted Addy 369 Attire is bright colors 80 4/12 Residence Redacted Addy 648 Night Party 4/24 Residence Redacted Addy 911 Camo, sorority exchange with Delta Gamma 4/27 Residence Redacted Addy 932 Event changed to 5/1 5/1 Residence Redacted Addy 933 Wedding theme with Kappa Kappa Gamma 5/8 Residence Redacted Addy 946 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta 100 5/10 Residence redact or redact 977 Dye Is Life Tournament 100 5/10 Residence Redacted Addy 982 Night Party 80 5/23 Residence Redacted Addy 1032 Electric Forest Night Party 100 6/7 Residence Redacted Addy 1027 Beach Theme Day Party 80 10/11 Residence Redacted Addy 1296 Night Party, wear black 10/16 Residence Redacted Addy 1301 Sorority exchange with Delta Gamma 10/30 Residence Redacted Addy 1305 Sorority exchange with Kappa Kappa Gamma 11/1 Residence Redacted Addy 1634 Halloween Night Party 80 11/8 Residence Redacted Addy 1310 Masquerade Night Party 11/13 Residence Redacted Addy 1316 Sorority exchange with Chi Omega 80 12/6 Residence Redacted Addy 1320 Night Party Beta Theta Pi 1327 E. Foothill Blvd R-4 2025 Events No Conditional Use Permit # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 1/11 Chapter Redacted Addy 1 Initiation 1/13 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 377 Sorority exchange, Delta Gamma, Golf theme 2/1 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 92 Brotherhood Whiteout 2/7 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 143 Blizzard theme 3/6 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 584 Sorority exchange, Kappa Kappa Gamma, Vegas wedding 3/16 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 581 Sorority exchange, Chi Omega, European/athletic attire 4/5 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 643 Brotherhood Hawaiian 4/17 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 807 Sorority exchange, Gamma Phi Beta, Runway 4/19 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 811 Brotherhood Western 4/26 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 907 Sorority exchange with Kappa Kappa Gamma, Jeans 5/22 Residence Redacted Addy 1096 Sorority exchange with Chi Omega, What’s in my closet 5/24 Residence redacted addy 1105 Beta Bahamas – Beach 6/7 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 1193 Brotherhood 9/26 Residence Redacted Addy 1204 Rush – Satellite House Showcase 9/27 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 1214 Rush – Main House Showcase 9/28 Residence Redacted Addy 1217 Rush – House Tailgate 10/10 10/9 1349 Sorority exchange, Alpha Omicron Pi, Jungle theme 10/11 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 1353 New Member Brotherhood, Black attire 10/16 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 1437 Sorority exchange, Kappa Kappa Gamma, Casino theme 10/18 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 1440 Brotherhood, Mardi Gras 10/23 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 1515 Sorority exchange, Alpha Phi, Risky Business theme 11/13 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 1725 Sorority exchange, Gamma Phi Beta, Wedding theme 11/14 Chapter 1327 E. Foothill 1733 Alumni Event Delta Chi 1236 Monte Vista Place R-4 2025 Events Conditional Use Permit – Revoked June 2025, Appeal Denied October 2025 # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 1/31 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 49 Sorority exchange, Alpha Chi Omega, Country 200 1/31 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 57 Viva Las Vegas 2/1 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 53 Pajama Party 2/7 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 147 Halloween, costumes 200 2/7 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 152 Halloween, costumes 2/14 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 267 Sorority exchange, Alpha Phi 200 2/14 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 272 Open party, Valentine’s theme 2/15 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 275 Delta Dreamland, tie die attire 2/16 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 279 Sorority exchange Gamma Phi Beta, Pajama party 250 2/16 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 285 Open party, pajama theme 100 2/22 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 404 Founders Formal party 4/26 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 894 Sorority exchange, Alpha Phi 200 4/26 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 899 Open party, Stagecoach, western theme 5/16 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 1048 Y2K themed party, sorority exchange 200 5/16 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 1053 Y2K theme 5/17 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 1058 Island theme 200 5/17 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 1063 Delta Chi Island Open party 10/10 Residence 1236 Monte Vista Pl 1253 Sorority exchange, Alpha Chi Omega, Pajama party 10/17 Residence 1236 Monte Vista Pl 1454 Ancient Roman theme 10/25 10/24 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 1520 Tacky Country with Alpha Phi sorority 10/31 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 1603 Halloween 11/7 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 1670 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta, 80s theme 11/7 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 1674 Delta Disco 80s Party 11/14 Chapter 1236 Monte Vista Pl 1729 Jungle theme Satellite address: Unknown Delta Sigma Phi 244 California Ave R-4 2025 Events No Conditional Use Permit (244 California Blvd, Revoked 2015) # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 60 2/7 Chapter 1688 Mill Street 200 Bubble party, 80s theme 60 2/27 Chapter 1688 Mill Street 437 Western Bash 2/28 location changed to: 1688 Mill Street 205 Sorority exchange with Delta Gamma 60 4/5 Chapter 1688 Mill Street 602 Spring Fling 4/17 Chapter 1688 Mill Street 843 Sorority exchange with Delta Gamma 5/9 Chapter 180 California Blvd 848 Sorority exchange with Kappa Alpha Theta 60 5/31 Chapter 1688 Mill Street 1133 Day Party, no theme 10/9 Chapter 244 California Blvd 1266 Sorority exchange with Delta Gamma 90 10/11 Chapter 244 California Blvd 1222 Open Party 10/16 Chapter 244 California Blvd 1409 Sorority exchange with Kappa Alpha Theta 40 10/17 Chapter 244 California Blvd 1428 Semi-Formal 200 10/31 Chapter 244 California Blvd 1528 Halloween Party 11/7 Chapter 244 California Blvd 1652 DSIG X Club Basketball 120 11/14 Chapter 244 California Blvd 1638 White Lies on t-shirts 60 12/5 Chapter 244 California Blvd 1756 Rhyme without Reason Known satellite house: 1684 / 1688 Mill Street (R-2) until summer 2025, other locations unknown Delta Upsilon 720 E. Foothill Blvd R-4 2025 Events Conditional Use Permit – Revoked June 2025, Appeal Denied October 2025 # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 2/1 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 2/6 Chapter 720 E. Foothill Risky Business party 150 2/7 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 180 2/8 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 2/20 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 2/27 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 509 Love Island party 2/28 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 515 Night in Ibiza 3/6 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 519 Sorority exchange with AOII – fashion show 120 3/7 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 523 DUphoria – all white party 60 3/8 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 529 Dynamic Duo party 150 (update) 3/8 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 531 Rio Dayge Neiro 4/18 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 100 4/19 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 661 LollapaDUza party 100 5/2 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 824 Rave party 5/3 Chapter 720 E. Foothill after 824 5/9 Chapter Redacted address 665 Y2K party 5/10 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 670 Sorority exchange 100 5/10 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 675 Day at the Beach party 5/16 Chapter 720 E. Foothill after 824? 100 5/16 Chapter Redacted address 681 DZUu – animal print/camo party 100 5/17 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 686 DU Rodeo party 5/30 Chapter 720 E. Foothill Address change: Redacted address 691 All Stars party – sports jerseys 100 5/31 Chapter 720 E. Foothill 694 Wet and Wild 10/9 Residence Redacted address 10/10 Residence Redacted address 10/18 Chapter Redacted address Address change: Redacted address 1360 DU Date – White Wedding party 10/18 Chapter Redacted address 1365 DU After Dark Neon party 150-200 10/31 Residence Redacted address 1575 Halloween party 11/6 Residence Redacted address Known satellite houses: 281 Albert Drive 388 Chaplin Lane 1868 Loomis 1861 Slack Kappa Sigma 148 Orange Dr. R-1 2025 Events Known locations: 148 Orange (R-1), 281 Hathway (R-1), 322 Hathway (R-2), 146 Stenner (R4), 108 Crandall (R4), 1990 McCollum (R-1), 1861 Hope (R-1) # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 2/7 Residence Address redacted 216 Sorority exchange with Alpha Omicron Pi 2/8 Residence Address redacted 212 80s in Aspen party 2/21 Residence Address redacted 339 Sorority exchange 100 2/21 Residence Address redacted 342 Sports party - jerseys 2/22 Residence Address redacted 408 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta 100 2/22 Residence Address redacted 413 Semiformal party 3/1 Residence Address redacted Sorority exchange with Alpha Chi Omega “Chapter” by sorority 100 3/1 Residence Address redacted 502 Kappa Kauai beach party 3/6 Residence Address redacted Sorority exchange Sigma Kappa “Adam Sandler” p298 120 4/5 Residence Address redacted 611 Jungle party 100 4/25 Residence Address redacted 883 Space Jam party 4/26 Residence Address redacted 871 Sorority exchange with Alpha Chi Omega Alpha Chi Omega classified as “Chapter” pha 384 100 4/26 Residence Address redacted 875 Beach themed party 5/10 Residence Address redacted Sorority exchange with Alpha Phi 100 5/10 Residence Address redacted 987 Beach themed party 5/31 Residence Address redacted 1138 Sorority exchange with Alpha Omicron Pi 100 5/31 Residence Address redacted 1142 Beach themed party 10/11 Residence Address redacted 1201 Sorority exchange with Alpha Omicron Pi 100 10/11 Residence Address redacted 1244 Risky Business party 10/17 Residence Address redacted Sorority exchanged with Alpha Chi Omega 100 10/17 Residence Address redacted 1422 Beach themed party 10/24 Residence Address redacted 1480 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta 100 10/24 Residence Address redacted 1422 “Trailer Park” party (shotgun wedding) 100 10/31 11/1 Residence Address redacted 1582 Kappa Halloween party 11/1 Residence Address redacted 1611 Sorority exchange with Alpha Pi - Halloween 100 11/7 Residence Address redacted 1665 Kappa Rave party Address changed to: Address redacted 1667 100 11/14 Residence Address redacted 1721 Sigma Supernova space party 100 12/5 Residence Address redacted 1746 Kappa Christmas party Known satellite houses: 148 Orange Drive 281 Hathway Ave 322 Hathway Ave 146 Stenner St 1990 McCollum St 1861 Hope St 108 Crandall Wy Lambda Chi Alpha 1264 Foothill Blvd R-4 2025 Events Conditional Use Permit: Max occupancy of 48 people # of Guests Event Date Classiflcation Address Pg Ref Type of Event 2/6 Residence 12 Hathway Ave 84 Sorority exchange with Alpha Chi Omega 100 2/7 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 125 Octoberfest party 200 2/8 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 143 Pinning Party 2/13 Residence 12 Hathway Ave 192 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta 150 2/14 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 231 Angels/Devils – Valentine’s Party 2/20 Residence 12 Hathway Ave 331 Sorority exchange with Sigma Kappa 150 2/22 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 348 Call of Dayge – Camoufiage theme party 2/28 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd Sorority exchange Alpha Phi before open party 150 2/28 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 463 Jersey Shore - polos and leopard party 100 4/7 4/4 Residence 12 Hathway Ave 626 Lambda Academy prep school party (Citation 241 Hathway – 75 ppl) 4/19 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd Sorority exchange AOII before open party 100 4/19 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 793 Cowboy/cowgirl themed party 100 4/25 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 880 Ya cht Party 100 5/3 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 920 Kentucky Derby Party 5/22 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 1044 Sorority exchange with Sigma Kappa Biker Bash 100 5/24 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 1074 Beach themed party (Citation at 12 Hathway – 200 ppl) 100 5/31 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 1148 USA Party – red, white & blue 6/7 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd Sorority exchange before open party – 241 Hathway Ave 100 6/7 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 1176 Party in the USA (Citation 241 Hathway – 100 ppl) Event on 6/7 moved to 241 Hathway Avenue, zoned R-1 residential (address inadvertently left unredacted by Cal Poly) 100 10/10 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 1335 Welcome Back party 10/16 Residence 12 Hathway Ave 1357 Sorority exchange AXO formal 10/17 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 1386 Sorority exchange Alpha Phi before open party 100 10/17 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 1390 Country vs. Country Club party 10/23 Residence 12 Hathway Ave 1495 Sorority exchange with Kappa Kappa Gamma 100 10/31 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 1562 shows Halloween party moved to 1264 Foothill Blvd 11/7 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 1620 Sorority exchange Sigma Kappa before open party 100 11/7 Chapter 1264 Foothill Blvd 1656 Camo party Addresses used as satellite fraternity houses for Lambda Chi Alpha, listed in AB 524, rush cards: 241 Hathway Ave 12 Hathway Ave 171 Orange Drive 285 Chaplin Ln 178 Chaplin Ln 220 Kentucky St 253 Albert Dr 278 Albert Dr Christine Wallace emailed Sandy Rowley re: 5/24/2025 party, above. It had 200 people, citation to Ryan Brown a member of Lambda Chi Alpha Phi Delta Theta 260 Chaplin Ln 2025 Events No Conditional Use Permit # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 1/17 Residence Address redacted 5 Pajama party 2/1 Residence Address redacted 95 Risky Business theme 60 2/17 Residence 180 California Blvd 80 Sorority exchange with Kappa Alpha Theta – white lies party 70 2/22 Residence Address redacted 423 Red, White and You party 70 3/1 Residence Address redacted 541 Phinapples in Paradise party 100 3/8 3rd-Party Ven Libertine Brewing Co. 571 Phi Delt Band Show 4/18 Residence Address redacted 652 Sorority exchange with Delta Gamma – Risky Business 4/25 Residence 180 California Blvd 891 Sorority exchange with Kappa Alpha Theta - neon night party 9/9 Residence Address redacted 1261 Sorority exchange with Chi Omega – Gameday sports jerseys 10/17 Residence Address redacted 1466 Sorority exchange with Kappa Kappa Gamma – Y2K theme 80 10/17 Residence Address redacted 1405 The Summer I Turned Pretty* 11/19 Residence Address redacted 1742 Sorority exchange with Delta Gamma *Note from FSL re: event on 10/17: Known fraternity locations: 260 Chaplin Ln (R-1), 556 Foothill (R-4), 251 Highland (R-1), 568 Ellen (R-2) Phi Gamma Delta (“FIJI”) 1229 Fredericks Street R-1 2025 Events No Conditional Use Permit # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 1/30 Residence Address redacted 71 Sorority exchange with Delta Gamma 2/7 Residence Address redacted 67 Sorority exchange with Chi Delta Theta 30 2/8 Residence Address redacted 182 Phi Gam Space Jam 2/20 Residence Address redacted 321 Sorority exchange with Delta Gamma 35 2/21 Residence Address redacted 326 FIJI Rodeo 35 2/28 Residence Address redacted 468 Sports Jerseys 35 3/8 Residence Address redacted 535 Date Party 35 4/18 Residence Address redacted 723 Beanies & Bikinis 35 5/2 Residence Address redacted 729 FIJI After Dark 35 5/9 Residence Address redacted 734 Beach theme 35 5/30 Residence Address redacted 741 Pajama Party 35 6/6 Residence Address redacted 746 Toga Night 50 10/18 Residence Address redacted 1273 Beanies & Bikinis 10/23 Residence Address redacted 1565 Sorority exchange with Kappa Kappa Gamma, PJ Night 10/30 Residence Address redacted 1615 Sorority exchange with Delta Gamma, Halloween 50 10/31 Residence Address redacted 1279 FIJI Halloween Known fraternity locations: 1229 Fredericks St (R-2) Phi Kappa Psi 1335 E. Foothill Blvd R-4 2025 Events Conditional Use Permit: Max occupancy of 17 people # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 1/30 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 100 Sorority exchange, Alpha Phi 100 1/31 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 177 Dynamite black & red party 2/6 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 114 Sorority exchange, Delta Gamma, Vogue fashion theme 100 2/8 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 226 Dynamite party* 50 2/28 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 442 Formal 3/1 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 373 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta “Bad & Boujee” 120 3/8 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 382 Stagecoach Cowboy/cowgirl party 100 4/19 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 803 Pirates of the Caribbean party 4/25 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 815 (see below) Location change to:1335 Foothill Blvd 816 Sorority exchange with Alpha Phi 100 5/3 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 866 Phi Safari party 5/15 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 936 Sorority exchange with Delta Gamma 100 5/17 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 941 Phi Dive swimwear party 5/25 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 950 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta 8/17 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 1470 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta 150 9/1date change Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 1590 Shabang, black clothing/costume party 100 10/10 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 1329 Midnight Dynamite party 10/23 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 1502 Sorority exchange with Delta Gamma 150 10/31 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 1570 Phi Psylum, Halloween 150 11/1 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 1592 Shabang, black clothing/costume party 11/19 Chapter 1335 Foothill Blvd 1737 Sorority exchange with Kappa Kappa Gamma *pg. 227, note from FSL staff: Known satellite houses for Phi Kappa Psi: 237 Albert Drive (R-1), 2062 Hope (R-1), 1271, 1273 & 1275 Stafford (R-2), 346 Grand (R-1) 1740 Fredericks (R-1) Phi Sigma Kappa 348 Hathway Ave R-2 2025 Events Known locations: 348 Hathway Ave, 1908 Loomis St # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 2/8 Residence Address redacted Sorority exchange 70 2/8 Residence Address redacted 163 Risky Business party 2/20 Residence Address redacted 352 Sorority exchange with Chi Omega -Risky Business theme 80 2/22 Residence Address redacted 399 Phi Sig Pillow Party - PJs 75 3/1 Residence Address redacted 554 Jungle Cruise Party 3/6 Residence Address redacted Sorority exchange Kappa Kappa Gamma “Chapter” by KKG Address redacted 285 Graffiti theme 4/17 Residence Address redacted Sorority exchange 100 4/19 Residence Address redacted 798 Phi Sig Jungle Express 5/1 Residence Address redacted Sorority exchange Delta Gamma 120 5/16 Residence Address redacted 1022 Phi Sig Welcome to Paradise Event moved: Address redacted 1024 120 5/23 Residence Address redacted 1069 Phi Sig Beach Night 150 5/31 Residence Address redacted 1115 Daygecoach 100 10/11 Residence Address redacted 1285 Love Island party 148 10/17 Residence Address redacted 1433 Jerseys and Jeans party 80 10/24 10/25 Residence Address redacted 1475 Love Island TV costumes 10/24 Residence Address redacted Sorority exchange 100 10/31 Residence Address redacted 1511 Halloween party 11/6 Residence Address redacted 1607 Sorority exchange with Chi-O – Wedding theme 100 11/8 Residence Address redacted 1660 Phi Sig Fall Party 100 11/14 Residence Address redacted 1702 Phi Sig Cosmos Rave party Pi Kappa Phi 2025 Events No Conditional Use Permit # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 65 1/31 Chapter Address redacted 43 Neon Lights 2/13 Chapter Address redacted 361 What’s in my Closet, random clothing 2/20 Residence Address redacted 474 Country vs. Country Club 65 2/21 Chapter Address redacted 357 Pajama Party Location to: Redacted address 362 2/27 Residence Address redacted 567 Pajama Party 80 3/15 Chapter Address redacted 593 St. Patrick’s Party 70 4/18 Chapter Address redacted 700 Neon Lights, wear black 4/24 Chapter Address redacted 714 Explorer Address change: Redacted location 65 4/25 Chapter Address redacted 705 What’s in my Closet, random clothing 65 5/9 Chapter Address redacted 710 Country vs. Country Club 5/30 Chapter Address redacted 1181 Bands for Ability (live bands) 50 6/6 Chapter Address redacted 1166 80s in Aspen 65 10/10 Chapter Address redacted 1239 Neon Lights, wear black 10/16 Residence Address redacted 1462 Country, western wear 2:1(unknown #) 10/31 Chapter Address redacted 1546 Halloween Party 11/7 Chapter Address redacted 1697 Green Flags Known fraternity locations: 501 Kentucky St (R-1), 66 Rafael Way (R-1), 740 Foothill (County- former restaurant/bar property) Sigma Nu 1304 E. Foothill R-4 2025 Events Conditional Use Permit Revoked June 2025 # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 1/26 Residence Address redacted 23 Sigma Stacks, pajama theme 1//31 Residence Address redacted 19 Sorority exchange with Kappa Sigma, Wigma Nu Location changed to: Address redacted 21 2/7 Residence Address redacted 104 Sorority exchange with Alpha Phi, Wimbledon theme 2/8 City Park at 1040 Fuller pickleball courts 138 Sorority exchange with Aphi, Pickleball 50 75 p.111 2/8 Residence Address redacted 109 Date Night, Semi-formal Location changed to: redacted address 111 2/21 Residence Address redacted 307 Sorority exchange with Alpha Chi Omega, Greek wedding 80 2/22 Chapter 1304 E. Foothill 312 Sigma Secret 2/28 Residence Address redacted 446 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta Address changed to 1304 E. Foothill 447 80 3/1 Chapter 1304 E. Foothill 478 Sigma Disco Address change to Redacted Address 480 Address changed back to 1304 Foothill 480 3/7 Residence Address redacted 562 Sorority exchange with Alpha Omega Pi 4/5 Residence Address redacted 606 Sorority exchange with Sigma Kappa Location change: redacted address 607 100 4/19 Chapter 1304 E. Foothill 783 Sigma Saloon* 4/29 Residence Address redacted 1119 Sorority exchange with Alpha Chi Omega Address change: REDACTED ADDRESS 1120 (Date changed to 5/29/2025) 5/9 Residence Address redacted 954 Sorority exchange with Alpha Omega Pi 5/16 Residence Address redacted 1005 Sorority exchange with Alpha Phi Location changed to: redacted address 1006 100 5/16 Residence Address redacted 1010 Sigma Party Location changed to: Redacted address 100 5/17 Residence Address redacted 1015 Sigma-Ritaville Location changed to: REDACTED ADDRESS 1018 100 5/31 Residence Address redacted 1124 Boston Twea Party 10/10 Residence Address redacted 1226 Sorority exchange with Alpha Phi 10/11 Chapter 1304 E. Foothill 1230 Sorority exchange with Alpha Phi, carwash 10/11 Residence Address redacted 1234 SnuFari 10/17 Residence Address redacted 1378 Sorority exchange with Sigma Kappa 10/18 Residence Address redacted 1381 Sigma Surf 10/24 Residence Address redacted 1444 Sorority exchange with Alpha Chi Omega 80 10/25 Residence Address redacted 1449 G.A.D. Party 11/6 Residence Address redacted 1595 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta 11/8 Residence Address redacted 1599 Heaven, angel white clothes** 12/6 Residence Address redacted 1751 Santa Con Location changed to: Redacted Addres *Note for 4/19 event re: DoorList app for guestlist tracking on pg. 785: Note for 11/8 event re: sober monitors at events that are “dry”: Known satellite fraternity houses: 1292 E. Foothill (R-4), 1621 McCollum (R-1), 290 Chaplin Ln (R-1), 1841 Slack (R-1), 1632 Fredericks (R-1), 1541 Slack (R-1), 385 Chaplin (R-1) Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays St R-1 2025 Events No Conditional Use Permit # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 40 2/7 Residence Address redacted 133 Wild, Wild West 40 2/14 Residence Address redacted 245 Valentine’s Party 30 5/10 Residence Address redacted 971 Sigma Phiami 30 5/31 Residence Address redacted 1153 Sigfari, safari theme 50 10/11 Residence Address redacted 1209 Hoedown on Hathway 50 11/8 Residence Address redacted 1643 White Lies Party (white lies written on t-shirts) Sigma Pi 1525 Slack R-1 2025 Events No Conditional Use Permit. Known locations: 1525 Slack St (R-1), 1555 Slack St (R-2), 124 Stenner (R4), # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 100 1/7 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 186 Disco Fever party 1/30 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 88 Sorority exchange with Chi Omega, sports jerseys 2/13 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 100 2/15 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 254 Day at the Races themed party 100 2/16 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 263 Black and White party 2/27 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 450 Sorority exchange, Gamma Phi Beta, white lies party 3/7 3/6 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 4/3 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 200 4/18 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 773 SLO-Chella, Coachella themed party 200 4/19 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 778 Country party 100 4/26 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 861 Date party 200 4/26 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 856 Sigma Splash party 150 5/16 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 996 White-out, all white party 200 5/17 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 1001 Beach-themed party 150 5/30 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 1101 Electric jungle, Rave party 200 5/31 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 1110 Color Splash party 6/5 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 1189 Sorority exchange, Gamma Phi Beta, all black party 75 10/10 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 1249 Sigma (Pi)llow pajama party 50 10/17 Residence 1525 Slack Street 1395 Rhyme Without Reason party 100 10/18 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 1400 Slack-toberfest (related to address on Slack Street) 100 10/31 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 1556 Halloween party 100 11/14 Chapter 1525 Slack Street 1693 80s Disco Party Theta Chi 385 Albert Dr R-1 2025 Events No Conditional Use Permit # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 2/6 Residence Address redacted 128 Theta Chi Rave Pajama Party 60 2/8 Residence Address redacted 172 Skiing in SLO 2/13 Residence Address redacted 195 Valentine’s Bash Back-up location: Address redacted 196 40 2/14 Residence Address redacted 221 Valentine’s Date party 2/20 Residence Address redacted 334 Sorority exchange with Alpha Phi, Safari theme Location change: Address redacted 335 60 2/22 Residence Address redacted 431 Theta Chi Rave Location change: Address redacted 433 60 2/28 Residence Address redacted 497 Date Night in Margaritaville 4/3 Residence Address redacted 616 Sorority Exchange Alpha Omicron Pi, Ibiza theme 80 4/5 Residence Address redacted 621 Hammers and Nails, construction themed party 100 4/19 Residence Address redacted 764 Rodeo OX party 5/1 Residence Address redacted 929 Sorority exchange with Sigma Kappa sorority, Love Island 5/2 Residence Address redacted 1087 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta, Surf & Turf 80 5/25 Residence Address redacted 1092 Theta Chi-Island Dayge 6/5 Residence Address redacted 1185 Date Night with Theta Chi 10/9 Residence Address redacted 1269 Sorority exchange with Alpha Phi, Y2K theme 60 10/10 Residence Address redacted 1290 Welcome to the Jungle party New location: Address redacted 1291 10/16 Residence Address redacted 1368 Sorority exchange with Alpha Omicron Pi, Wild West theme 40 10/17 Residence Address redacted 1373 Rhyme without Reason Date night party 11/1 Residence Address redacted 1523 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta Halloween Bash 11/1 Residence Address redacted 1541 Open party, Halloween with Theta Chi 11/1 Residence Address redacted 1625 Theta Chi Run Club, athletic wear for running theme 60 11/8 Residence Address redacted 1629 Apres Ski with Theta Chi 11/7 Residence Address redacted 1648 Sorority exchange with Alpha Chi Omega Wedding theme 80 11/7 Residence Address redacted 1717 Neon Rave 50 11/14 Residence Address redacted 1683 Date Night Formal Address change to : Redacted address 1684 Address change to: Address redacted 1685 Known fraternity locations: 385 Albert (R-1), 1844 McCollum (R-1), 248 & 250 Grand (R-1), 1820 Hope (R-1), 496 Kentucky & 1350 Stafford (R-2), 334 E. Foothill (R-1), 1441 Slack (R-1) Zeta Beta Tau 2025 Events No Conditional Use Permit. Known locations: 654 & 658 Graves (R-4), 2044 Albert (R-1), 1928 Garfield (R-4), 2044 Loomis (R-1), 212 Albert (R-1), 2044 McCollum (R-1), 1646 Fredericks (R-1) # of Guests Event Date Classification Address Pg Ref Type of Event 2/6 Residence Address redacted 208 Sorority exchange with Aphi 2/13 Residence Address redacted 299 Live concert with Sandspits band 120 2/14 Residence Address redacted 295 Valentine’s party 2/27 Residence Address redacted 304 Sorority exchange, Sigma Kappa tea party theme 200 3/1 Residence Address redacted 490 ZBT Sunset Dayge - rescheduled 3/6 Residence Address redacted 318 Sorority exchange, Alpha Chi Omega 200 3/7 Residence Address redacted 488 ZBT Sunset Dayge 3/12 Residence Address redacted 597 Sorority exchange, Gphi, “Wedding ” theme (shotgun) 250 4/5 Residence Address redacted 635 Jungle party 4/17 Residence Address redacted 820 Sorority exchange, Alpha Chi Omega 250 4/26 Residence Address redacted 830 Stagecoach Dayge, country themed party 125 5/2 Residence Address redacted 835 Shabang theme 4/24 Residence Address redacted Sorority exchange 5/3 Residence Address redacted Sorority exchange 5/8 Residence Address redacted 852 Sorority exchange with Sigma Kappa 175 5/24 Residence Address redacted 1079 ZBTahiti 120 5/30 Residence Address redacted 1158 Address redacted 10/10 Residence Address redacted 1197 Sorority exchange with Sigma Kappa 10/23 Residence Address redacted 1498 Sorority exchange with Alpha Chi Omega 200 10/25 Residence Address redacted 1489 ZBT Halloween party 10/30 Residence Address redacted 1531 Sorority exchange with Gamma Phi Beta 125 11/7 Residence Address redacted 1536 Veterans Day Weekend party 75 12/5 Residence Address redacted 1550 ZBT Date party ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT E ATTACHMENT F Erica Stewart Courtney Kienow Courtney Kienow Erica Stewart Illegal Cal Poly frat houses have created hell for SLO neighbors. It can’t continue | Opinion By The Tribune Editorial Board Updated January 21, 2025 2:26 PM Wake up, Cal Poly. Illegal fraternity houses have taken over residential neighborhoods near campus, turning those areas into weekend-long party zones and depriving residents of the right to enjoy their own property. Consider what they have to put up with: “From Thursday to Sunday, hundreds of screaming partygoers wander the streets to flnd the next hot spot as loud music and thumping bass reverberate through the neighborhood — sometimes until 3 or 4 in the morning,” described Tribune journalist Sadie Dittenber, who spent two months researching the issue. The city has attempted to control the situation through zoning laws, by allowing frat houses only in multi-family zones. Yet residents of single-family neighborhoods say dozens of frats are operating illegally in what are supposed to be quiet residential areas. One resident who tracks fraternity events has documented what she believes are more than 60 illegal frat houses in the city. The situation is blatantly unfair, yet officials seem at a loss as to how to deal with it. Cal Poly claims it is not responsible: “Where organizations might operate houses is a matter between the city of SLO and the property owners, residents and organizations,” a campus spokesperson said via email. The city of San Luis Obispo does have the power to issue noise citations and to investigate complaints of zoning violations, but residents say enforcement is lax, in part because of understaffing. They’re asking the City Council to intervene and make things right. The council should listen. If this were happening in other parts of the city, it would never fiy. So why allow it in the Cal Poly neighborhoods? Disappearing addresses Cal Poly claims it cooperates with the city on enforcing zoning violations, but residents accuse the university of making it harder to track illegal frat houses by failing to disclose addresses of off- campus Greek events. Under the state’s Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act, AB 524, Greek organizations are required to report all events they’ve hosted over the previous year, along with the addresses where the activities took place. That information is made available to the public in an annual report. According to residents who closely monitor the situation, the list used to include the exact street addresses where events were held. The city was then able to use that information to notify property owners that violations may have occurred at their residences — a flrst step in making a case against illegal fraternity houses. Except, the report no longer includes the street addresses. Now, event locations are listed as “San Luis Obispo,” unless they were held at a third-party venue like a restaurant or brewery. Here’s the university’s explanation: “The university included addresses of events in its flrst AB524 report but made the decision to remove them from subsequent reports out of growing concerns in the legal landscape pertaining to student privacy (other CSU campuses are similarly moving in this direction). AB524 requires the university to publish addresses of chapter houses, which the university does. As to events, publication of addresses is required only for events where misconduct has occurred, which the university also complies with,” spokesperson Matt Lazier wrote in an email. We’re not buying it. Many CSUs do continue to list street addresses of off-campus events, including Sacramento State, Chico State and Fresno State. Also, shouldn’t openly defying city zoning laws qualify as misconduct? Next steps At a recent San Luis Obispo City Council meeting, attorney Stewart Jenkins suggested that the city subpoena Cal Poly for the records — a step that wouldn’t be necessary if the university were truly willing to cooperate. If Cal Poly remains unwilling to disclose addresses, there are other ways to keep tabs on what’s happening in neighborhoods near Cal Poly. For example, fraternities often advertise their parties on social media — information the city could use to crack down on illegal frat houses. But that again raises the other issue: short staffing. At a recent City Council meeting, residents asked the city to hire two additional code enforcement officers to help regain control of the campus neighborhoods. That is not a big ask. The city should absolutely do so, and Cal Poly should pick up at least part of the tab. Issuing noise and zoning citations is not a long-term flx, however, since violators can simply pay a flne to resolve the case. Filing a nuisance abatement case is another option the could carry more serious consequences. Such a case can be pursued when more than two loud or unruly gatherings are held within a 60- day period that “threaten the public peace, health, safety or general welfare and require a police response.” Yet the city hasn’t elected to go that route. “I am not aware of any recorded examples of the nuisance process being used in this manner,” interim deputy building official John Mezzapesa said in an email. Thousands of Cal Poly students turned out Saturday morning for St. Fratty's Day celebrations. Some students said they started drinking as early as around 3 a.m. By Joan Lynch| Loumay Alesali ‘Feral frat boys’ If citations aren’t effective — and it appears they aren’t — the city should use every enforcement tool at its disposal before this cycles even more out of control. The situation already is bad enough that it’s caught the attention of national media; even talk show host Dr. Phil has expressed interest. The Daily Mail, a publication based in the U.K., printed this: “The quaint California town Oprah once dubbed ‘the happiest place in America’ has been plagued by a deluge of feral frat boys hellbent on causing neighborhood carnage.” Not exactly the image Cal Poly, or San Luis Obispo, wants to promote. Is a Greek row the answer? Building a Greek row on campus — a project that appears in the university’s master plan — often is viewed as the holy grail that will solve neighborhood confiicts forever. Not so fast. Not even Cal Poly’s administration necessarily sees it that way. “Even with on-campus student organization housing, it is not realistic to expect all fraternity and sorority chapters, houses, or members to then live on campus. As new chapters continue to join the community, we do not expect to build a new house on campus for each organization. We also expect there are some organizations who are excited and willing to support an on-campus facility, and others who will not be ready to do so for a variety of reasons,” Lazier said in an email. That being the case, it’s highly likely that there will continue to be tension between permanent residents and fraternities. The best long-term solution may be for Cal Poly to buy out willing sellers and use the residences either for faculty or fraternity housing. In the meantime, the situation can no longer be ignored. Both Cal Poly and the city of San Luis Obispo are failing the residents who have been putting up with conditions that are simply unlivable. Immediate steps must be taken, beginning with real cooperation between the university and the city. Step up patrols on the weekends. Enforce ordinances already on the books. File nuisance abatement cases if that’s what it takes. Stop indulging fraternity members and send a clear message that disrespecting their neighbors will not be tolerated. This isn’t just a Cal Poly problem or a city problem. It’s a community problem. And it’s way past time to start treating it that way. This story was originally published January 19, 2025 at 5:00 AM.