The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/26/2026 Item 5a, Smith carolyn smith <cjsmith_107@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May To:Erica A. Stewart; Francis, Emily; Shoresman, Michelle; Marx, Jan; Boswell, Mike; E-mail Council Website Subject:City Council Study Session on Code Enforcement - May 26 Mayor Stewart and Council Members: The city's Municipal Code Section 17.156.014 defines fraternities and sororities as a residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational association that is affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings. Section 17.86.130 regarding Conditional Use Permits for fraternities operating in R-3 and R-4 zones states: “The provisions in this section are intended to promote the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by ensuring that dwelling units housing multiple persons who are members of a fraternity or sorority provide adequate support facilities for the intensity of associated use, and that such uses are operated in a manner that is not detrimental to the neighborhood in which they are located due to excessive noise, inadequate off-street parking, general property maintenance, and similar conditions. It's apparent that previous city leaders recognized fraternity operations and their activities and events are inherently disruptive to their neighbors. This is why they created the Conditional Use Permit process for the R-3 and R-4 multi-family zones with conditions to preserve quality of life in those neighborhoods for all residents. Additionally, the Supreme Court in 1974 rejected the notion that fraternities and their operations can peacefully co-exist in residential neighborhoods. They said fraternities present urban problems such as extreme late night noise from large crowds and events that destroy the “blessings of quiet seclusion and the sanctuary of one's home.” Our city's Planning Commission recently made findings that fraternity operations are detrimental to neighborhood health, safety, and welfare when they revoked fraternity Conditional Use Permits because they violated their conditions. All residents, both homeowners and renters alike, throughout our city have a right to quiet enjoyment of their home per California Civil Code Section 1927. This right protects residents from substantial interference with their use and enjoyment of their property. There is no exception to this right depending upon where you live in a city. Large noisy events and parties from fraternities in neighborhoods surrounding Cal Poly destroy that peaceful enjoyment. These large, loud fraternity events and parties don't just disturb residents next door, behind them, or across the street. The loud noise from live bands, and DJ's echos into other area neighborhoods oftentimes several blocks away. These events are not normal isolated college student noise. They are recurring commercial-scale social operations embedded within residential zones. Residents are woken up blocks away as partiers wander to and from these large parties (some with 300+ attendees) at wee hours of the morning. The daytime parties (called Dayges, i.e., Daytime Rages) that often include water slides with loud music, screaming and yelling, prevent residents for several blocks from enjoying their home's outside space on weekends. Historically, fraternity operations and events were located in R-3 and R-4 multi family zones with Conditional Use Permits. However, in recent years fraternity operations and events began creeping into R- 1 and R-2 lower density zones where they are not allowed per our zoning code. At the time this began occurring, residents notified Code Enforcement of these operations and that they were rapidly increasing in number. Unfortunately, by the time these violations were addressed, the number of properties operating as fraternity houses had exploded making it more difficult and time consuming to enforce. Currently, according to Code Enforcement Staff, there are 61 confirmed fraternity operations holding large events and large parties primarily in R-1 and R-2 residential zones with 20 others suspected. Some 1 fraternities have up to 7 homes in which they host registered events in these areas. This demonstrates a significant increase in fraternity operations in zones where they are not allowed. Unfortunately, Cal Poly is registering these events knowing they are occurring in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods contrary to our zoning code. Cal Poly should not be facilitating their students to disobey our city laws. This demonstrates a lack of respect and consideration for our city and its residents and should not be tolerated. Cal Poly should be working with the city to assure their fraternities are adhering to all city laws. It appears from Staff's report that enforcement of fraternities operating in violation of our zoning code has become more difficult and time-consuming due to the high volume of violations. Attempting to utilize current staffing levels for the increasing number of violations is not resolving the problem and has caused errors and gaps in enforcement. For example, during a recent appeal by a property owner who was objecting to his Notice of Violation for allowing a fraternity to operate in his property, an Administrative Law Judge expressed frustration with the city for their inadequate evidence and case preparation. He commented in his conclusion granting the property owner's appeal: the city's file “consists of accusations and legal and factual conclusions. The burden of proof is on the city and the city has not provided any concrete proof.” While I believe Staff is trying to do their best, this level of inefficiency should be unacceptable. If there is insufficiently trained staff to enforce this fraternity issue, then that should be rectified. If more code enforcement staff is needed, then that should be rectified. An additional code enforcement official could be hired or, at the very least, a trained temporary code enforcement individual to concentrate solely on this issue could be contracted, dedicated to enforcing the fraternity zoning code violations. There should also be significantly more coordination between SLOPD and CDD Code Enforcement. This would assist in evidence gathering and allow for a more complete record in violation notices. In summary, the appropriate action to widespread violations should not be to reduce or modify enforcement expectations but to improve enforcement capacity and inter departmental coordination. Weakening the laws historically intended to protect residents is not the right course of action. The proposition that the city should somehow try to encase fraternity operations within some kind of special overlay zone is not the answer to this problem. Not only would it be impossible to force all fraternities to operate within that zone without spreading into other areas (as they are already doing), it would create another enforcement burden and make livability for that zone impossible for both student and non-student residents. It would also relieve Cal Poly of their obligation to provide a Greek Row for their fraternity operations on campus. Cal Poly has nearly 10,000 acres of land. They could easily accommodate venues for their fraternity events and parties and/or build Greek Row housing, possibly using private public partnership. Not long ago, this possibility was mentioned in a Cal Poly housing presentation to council, but it appears that plan has been dropped from consideration. The city should strongly advocate for that to again be considered, instead of Cal Poly administrators advocating for the city to change their enforcement and zoning codes to accommodate their lack of responsibility. My comments should not be construed as an indictment against fraternities. There are homes in neighborhoods where all tenants are fraternity members, but they don't host fraternity events and/or large parties in their homes, thus peacefully co-existing with their neighbors. The problem is the fraternity house events and parties that are extremely disturbing to nearby residents and those blocks away-- treating our residential zones as entertainment zones. The city's Planning Commission has already acknowledged the harm these operations cause to residential neighborhoods' livability thereby making any policy or zone changes inconsistent with those findings. Fraternity members are advocating for reduced city enforcement, allowing them more chances to disturb their neighbors. I truly hope this council will not succumb to their request since many parties and events already get many chances before receiving a violation notice. Giving these violators more chances to disturb their neighbors will certainly not help this situation and will only make it harder for residents to live peacefully in their homes. Thank you for your time and attention to this most important issue. Carolyn Smith SLO City Resident 2