HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/26/2026 Item 5a, Cross
Brett Cross <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:5.a CODE ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES – SAFE AND LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND
HOUSING (180 MINUTES)
Dear Council Members,
The IFC President’s letter raises concerns that deserve a clear response — not because students shouldn’t be heard, but
because the narrative presented is incomplete, misleading, and in several cases directly contradicts the City’s own
findings, the General Plan, and the Planning Commission’s repeated determinations.
1. This is not about “fairness” — it is about land use, safety, and the law.
The IFC frames enforcement as “unequal treatment,” but the City’s own staff report shows the real issue: “Fraternity and
sorority enforcement has become one of the fastest growing and most resource-intensive categories, with 169
investigation requests and roughly 90 formal cases between 2024 and April 2026.”
These are not isolated misunderstandings or “unequal treatment.”
They are documented violations occurring at a scale unmatched by any other residential use in the city.
2. Fraternities are not being “targeted” — they are being identified because they are
operating illegally.
IFC objects to the City using flags, apparel, recruitment materials, and social media to identify illegal fraternity houses. But
the City is not “profiling” students — it is enforcing zoning laws against unpermitted land uses.
If a property is being used as a fraternity house, and fraternity branding is publicly displayed, that is not “identity-based
enforcement.”
It is evidence of use, which is exactly how land-use enforcement works for every other category of violation.
3. IFC’s request to eliminate fraternity CUPs and remove the definition of “fraternity house”
is an attempt to erase accountability.
The Planning Commission has made five separate findings that fraternity use is: “Detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the neighborhood.”
IFC’s solution is not to address those impacts — it is to eliminate the regulatory tools that allow the City to manage them.
That is not reform.
It is deregulation.
4. IFC’s noise and enforcement proposals would effectively exempt fraternities from
meaningful oversight.
IFC proposes:
1
No proactive enforcement
No enforcement unless a neighbor complains
No citations before 10 PM on weekdays and 12 AM on weekends
Mandatory warnings instead of citations
Capped fines
Only one citation per incident
A 15–30 minute “grace period”
This is not a safety proposal.
It is a request for special treatment that no other resident, business, or organization receives.
5. IFC’s push for a “student overlay zone” is a direct attempt to legalize fraternity houses
in residential neighborhoods.
The IFC letter explicitly recommends:
“a broader student overlay zone in appropriate areas near campus.”
This is the same concept Cal Poly has been pushing privately with City staff — a permissive overlay that would legalize
fraternity and sorority houses by right in neighborhoods where they are currently prohibited.
This is not about fairness.
It is about rezoning neighborhoods to accommodate Cal Poly’s housing deficit.
6. The City’s job is to protect neighborhoods — not rewrite zoning to solve Cal Poly’s
problems.
The City’s own records show:
100+ illegal fraternity/sorority houses
Repeated violations
Significant resource strain on enforcement
Documented neighborhood impacts
The IFC letter does not dispute these facts.
It simply asks the City to ignore them.
7. Students deserve respect — but neighborhoods deserve protection.
This is not anti-student.
It is pro-community.
Residents have the right to:
quiet enjoyment
safety
stable neighborhoods
predictable land-use rules
enforcement of existing laws
IFC’s proposals would undermine all of these.
The IFC President’s letter is well-written, but it asks the City to:
weaken enforcement
eliminate accountability
2
legalize illegal uses
rewrite zoning to benefit fraternities
ignore Planning Commission findings
disregard neighborhood impacts
adopt a “student overlay zone” that would permanently change residential areas
Council should reject these proposals and reaffirm its commitment to neighborhood livability, transparent governance, and
consistent enforcement of existing law.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo
3