Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/26/2026 Item 5a, Walker, S. Steven Walker <stevewalkerslo@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 25, To:E-mail Council Website Subject:May 26, 2026 Code Enforcement Study Session Attachments:Code Enforcement Rerpot p 105-106.pdf; Code Enforcement Report pg 1.pdf; 1525 Slack Street NOV.pdf Mayor Stewart and Council Members, I am working so am unable to attend the study session but have some important points to make. My family lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood for almost two decades, and my in-laws lived nearby before that. We enjoyed our student neighbors and were not concerned about normal college activity or occasional parties. What ultimately drove us from our home was not ordinary student life. It was the City's failure to meaningfully abate large-scale unlawful fraternity operations that had exponentially increased to surround us beginning in Fall 2021, and which have become chronic and institutionalized within the neighborhood. I work as a first responder EMS helicopter pilot. The constant late-night fraternity activity, amplified music, yelling, and recurring disturbances eventually made it unsafe for me to do my job due to chronic sleep deprivation. We ultimately left our longtime home because the conditions became intolerable. The staff report says very little about that kind of burden but says a great deal about the City's. The report acknowledges that fraternity and sorority enforcement has become "one of the fastest growing and most resource-intensive categories" of code enforcement and also acknowledges, in a single sentence that deserves far more attention than it receives, that staff "does not have evidence that the extensive effort to address Fraternity and Sorority land use violations has resulted in measurable change in the number of unpermitted houses and/or Fraternity and Sorority events occurring in unpermitted houses." For over two years, enforcement has been lax and fraternity houses are still throwing huge, noisy parties on weekends, even though Code Enforcement has documented and sent Notices of Violation to those same fraternity addresses operating in our neighborhood in violation of the City’s laws. That has been incredibly frustrating because the neighborhoods are being harmed but no real enforcement happens after the Notice is sent, declaring the property to be a public nuisance and ordering the fraternity activity to cease. The City spent more than 100 staff hours in a single three-week enforcement period in 2025. It issued $24,100 in fines across two years. And by its own admission, nothing changed. But that outcome is expected when you examine what the City's enforcement actually consisted of. The report describes a process that begins with a complaint and proceeds to a Notice of Violation, but then enforcement largely stops. The report identifies the full escalation ladder available to the City. What it 1 does not explain is why that ladder was almost never climbed, even though the City had already documented the unlawful fraternity addresses that continued to throw fraternity parties. Properties received Notices of Violation ordering fraternity activity to cease. Those same properties hosted the next party, and another party after that. The City's response, in case after case, was to close the complaint as “unfounded” or “unable to verify” even though the property was already determined to be operating unlawfully as a fraternity house and declared a public nuisance by the NOV. Sometimes a second Notice was sent, even though the first Notice already declared it was a public nuisance and ordered fraternity activity to cease immediately or face fines. I have attached a Notice that was sent to a fraternity property two years ago that operates as the main fraternity house for Sigma Pi in an R-1 zone, and continues to hold regular parties to this day. Generating enforcement activity is not the same as enforcing the law. A Notice of Violation that leads to no meaningful consequence is not enforcement. It is documentation of a problem the City chose not to solve. When voluntary compliance becomes the de facto endpoint rather than the starting point, compliance is up to the fraternity members, who choose not to comply. That is precisely what happened here, and the staff report confirms it: years of Notices, rising case counts, escalating staff hours, and no measurable change in the underlying conduct. The fraternities kept operating even though the City knew the addresses and had sent Notices of Violation ordering the unlawful activity to cease. The record documents exactly how this played out. In fall 2025, during the one proactive enforcement measure taken by the Code Enforcement staff, referenced earlier in this email, staff spent more than 100 hours over three weeks documenting 64 fraternity and sorority events across 45 locations in violation of the Municipal Code. The Code Enforcement Technician attended the IFC Kick-Off BBQ to request rush schedule cards identifying where recruitment events would be held. While she was working her way through the booths, the IFC president moved ahead of her, booth to booth, instructing each fraternity representative not to share information with City staff. Even without confirmation of the addresses, Code Enforcement staff knew the addresses of the fraternities operating unlawfully in the neighborhoods, and were able to document those events. Twelve of the sixteen fraternities found in violation subsequently refused to confirm or outright denied that events had taken place at locations that Code Enforcement witnessed and documented the events. Most of these properties were already issued Notices of Violation, but continued to operate unlawfully without abatement. The Code Enforcement Supervisor’s report also points out the operation was necessary only because Cal Poly has refused to cooperate with the City and confirm the addresses of its fraternities in the neighborhoods, which are mostly already known to Code Enforcement staff. Staff just doesn't know when the fraternity parties that Cal Poly is approving will occur. The report states: “the refusal of Cal Poly to disclose the locations in which events have taken place to another government agency has required the code enforcement team to perform independent investigations to obtain this information.” See attachment. 2 The City similarly blamed Cal Poly in its response to the Grand Jury for refusing to provide the addresses of fraternity events approved in residential neighborhoods. Yet even without formal confirmation from Cal Poly, Code Enforcement has repeatedly documented unlawful fraternity operations through its own investigations, issued Notices of Violation to many of those same properties, and acknowledged that the operations continued without meaningful abatement. There were also multiple mistakes made within Code Enforcement that led to the dismissal of citations. That might be explained because Code Enforcement Officers I/II are shown as qualified to handle zoning and land use matters, but the City had a Code Enforcement Tech/Safe Housing Specialist handling the unlawful fraternity matters. Regardless, the record shows that dozens of unlawful fraternity properties have been documented by the City, and those properties were sent Notices, but they have continued to hold parties and events without meaningful enforcement. The report's answer to this documented failure is to lower the bar further. Staff now recommends "prioritizing violations that result in disturbance to others," meaning the City intends to deprioritize the underlying zoning violation itself in favor of reacting only when a noise citation happens to be issued. Operating an unlawful fraternity in a prohibited zone is a Municipal Code violation regardless of whether a police officer witnesses a disturbance. The proposed approach would allow an unlawful land use to continue indefinitely so long as a specific event doesn't generate a noise citation. That is not a code enforcement standard. It is an exemption to the law. The report also proposes adding a work plan item to "analyze and develop an alternative regulatory framework for Fraternity and Sorority Houses." This framing invites the conclusion that the current tools have been tried and found insufficient. But the current tools have not been tried. Nuisance abatement was available. Criminal enforcement was available. The Planning Commission revoked permits at five properties and the same operations continued, because revocation of a permit does not stop an unlawful use. Only enforcement does. The City had every tool it needed and declined to use them. Proposing a new regulatory framework as the solution to an enforcement failure is not a policy response. It is a way of avoiding one. The report proposes replacing the existing CUP framework with an "alternative regulatory structure," but the CUP process exists for a reason. Each Conditional Use Permit carries conditions specifically designed to ensure compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood such as occupancy limits, noise restrictions, event protocols, and compliance obligations. Those conditions are the mechanism by which the City determined that fraternity use could be permitted at all. The Planning Commission revoked permits at five properties after finding that even with those conditions in place, the impacts could not be adequately mitigated and fraternity use was incompatible with residential living. The answer to that finding is not to develop a framework with fewer or weaker conditions. It is to enforce the conditions that exist. An alternative regulatory structure that waters down CUP requirements would not solve the compatibility problem the Commission already identified. It would formalize the City's surrender to it. The record shows that prior to 2024, only eight fraternity investigation requests were filed in eight years. But it does not acknowledge that the addresses of fraternities were not confirmed by Cal Poly until 3 October 2023, when it published its AB 524 report. That was a turning point in enforcement and was the point that the City became formally aware of the problem. It is a problem the City chose not to solve. The surge in complaints happened after that confirmation, and soon after the exponential increase of fraternity houses operating unlawfully in the residential neighborhoods. It happened because residents - displaced residents, exhausted residents, residents who were told by Cal Poly to call Code Enforcement while Cal Poly simultaneously approved the parties they were calling about - finally began documenting what the City already knew and chose not to act on. The report treats that surge as a workload problem. It is actually evidence of how long this failure had been accumulating before anyone with authority chose to notice. The staff report spends considerable space describing operational burdens, staffing limitations, and complaint volume. It says nothing about the burden placed on residents who spent the past several years living beside increasing unlawful fraternity operations the City itself acknowledges remain unresolved. It does not address the families who left. It does not address the gap between what the Municipal Code requires and what the City actually did. It does not ask why, given all the tools available, the enforcement process so consistently stopped at the Notice stage while the fraternities kept operating. The answer to this problem is to enforce the law that already exists, against the properties already identified, using the tools already available. Nuisance abatement and escalating consequences that actually lead to enforcement are what is needed. Residential neighborhoods should not be sacrificed because Cal Poly refuses to manage its fraternity system on campus and the City is unwilling to enforce its own zoning laws. Respectfully, Steve Walker 4 Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 805.781.7170 slocity.arg Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation (Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation) Robert K Morrison Trust 9110 Camatta Creek Road Santa Margarita, CA 93453-9787 SUBJECT ADDRESS: 1525 Slack Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405-1963 Code Case #: CODE-000050-2024 Dear Property Owner, APN: 052-321-008 City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff noted the following violations of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code or other relevant codes at the above listed address: 1. Use Regulations by Zone (SLOMC 17.10.020) The subject address has been identified as a fraternity/sorority located with the R-1 zone. The current use of a fraternity/sorority requires a use permit when within the R-3 & R-4 zones and is not allowed within the R-1 & R-2 zones as described in Table 2-1 of the following cited section of the municipal code. See attached table for specific uses allowed by zone. The city defines a Fraternity/Sorority as: Residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational association that is aff listed and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings. LOW 17.156.014). In brief, a location meets the definition of a fraternity or sorority when it houses fratemi . /sorority members AND holds a meeting or gathering hosted by a social or educational accnciatinn_ Cal Poly defines a recognized satellite house as any residence where the majority of occupants are members of the chapter. The subject address has been identified as a recognized satellite house by Cal Poly. Additionally, at least 9 sanctioned events have been reported to occur as part of the annual report published by Cal Pol.. acquired by the Campus -Recognized Sorority Fraternity Transparency Act (AB 524; Sections 66310-66312 of California Education Code). As a result of the above -mentioned determination and records, the subject address meets the definition of a fraternity/sorority and is subject to the City's use regulations as cited below. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 17.10.020: Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses. Uses within zones shall be regulated as set forth in Table 2-1: Uses Allowed by Zone, subject to subsections B through F of this section and additional regulations specified in the Specific Use Regulations column of Table 2-1. Land uses are defined in Chapter 17.156 (Land Use Definitions). In Table 2-1, symbols shall have these meanings: A The use is allowed as a matter of right. MUP The use requires a minor use permit approved by the director, as provided in Section]7.110.030 (Procedure — Minor Use Permit). CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning commission, as provided in Section]7.110.040 (Procedure —Conditional Use Permit). AIM The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor use permit review, the use may be established on the ground floor. Table 2-1: Uses Allowedby Zone A = Allowed; MUP = Minor Use Permit approval required, CUP = Conditional Use Permit approval required Key- WA = Minor Use Permit approval required on ground floor along street frontage, allowed on second flnor or a iaove Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific Use Land Use 0 JIG R-1 R-2 It-3 G4 PF 0 C-N C� CA C-0 C-T C-S M BP Regulations CIS Board ing House CUP CUP ML'P M"JP Caretaker Quarters A A A A A A A A A A A A A. A A MUP Continuing Care MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Community Elderly and Lang -Term MUP MUP MUP MfA WA MUP Care Family Day Care (Srnall A n A A A A A A A A A A A See Sec. 17.H.1 FlD and Large) and H&SC Sec- ', Sal �4 Fraiemitie=arc CUP CUP Section 17.86-130 Sororities Corrective Action: Please cease all use of the subject address as a fraternity/sorority. Additionally, cease all events that are associated with a fraternity or sorority. Any future verified events at this location may result in the issuance of fines. If the location is within the R-3/R-4 zone, and a fraternity/sorority is desired, please contact the city Planning Department at (805)781-7170 to determine if the location can be permitted to meet current zoning regulations and the required steps for submittal. We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s). Compliance with these regulations is required immediately. These violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Failure to correct the violation(s) by the specified date will result in the issuance of an Administrative Citation requiring payment of FINES in accordance with SLOMC Chapter 1.24. For Municipal Code violations that remain uncorrected after issuance of an Administrative Citation, the City may seek enforcement by other civil or criminal remedies. Any person having a title interest in the property may request a Director's review of this Notice by completing the enclosed Request for Director's Review Form and submitting it to the Community Development Department via email at code@slocity.org or to 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, within five (5) days of the date of this Notice. This Notice shall be deemed final unless you timely file a Request for Director's Review. We look forward to working with you to resolve these violations and would like to thank you for your efforts to maintain your property and to help preserve the safety and beauty of our community. If you have questions, please contact the undersigned Officer at (805) 783-7841 or ssheats@slocity.org. Sincerely, Steve Sheats, Code Enforcement Officer Cc: File Enclosures: Request for Directors Review From: Mezzapesa, John Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 9:54 AM To: Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities Cc: Joy Pederson; Brad Pulcipher; presidentsoffice@calpoly.edu; Courtney Leigh Kienow; greeklife@calpoly.edu Subject: Recognized Student Organization Misconduct Office of Student Rights & Responsibilities, Our office has recently focused proactive efforts on the identification, documentation, and enforcement of fall recruitment events sponsored by fraternities and sororities within the city limits. These efforts were made to determine compliance with the City's Municipal Code. Specifically, the locations in which fraternity- or sorority -sponsored events are held require the application for and approval of a conditional use permit. If no permit exists, it constitutes a violation of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code §17.10.020. Our recent efforts included documenting all social media posts advertising events, most of which intentionally did not include the addresses where events were to take place. The advertised dates and times of each event were cross- referenced with known locations at which fraternities and sororities have operated, and a comprehensive inspection campaign was conducted by Code Enforcement staff to document evidence of any events. Additionally, staff visited the IFC (Interfraternity Council) Kick -Off BBQ held on the O'Neil Lawn on September 25 to educate each organization regarding city regulations and to request copies of "RUSH Schedule Cards" from each organization. These cards were the method by which organizations securely shared the locations of each RUSH event. Of the eighteen fraternal members of the IFC, six provided a card to our staff; the remaining organizations refused to share any information. In fact, as City staff began visiting each booth at the BBQ, the president of the IFC made it a point to quickly visit each booth and advise each organization not to share information related to upcoming RUSH events. After roughly 100+ hours of dedicated research and inspection time over the span of three weeks, staff confirmed that fraternal and sororal organizations held 64 events across 45 locations in violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. As part of the investigation, in the days following identified events, staff visited each location found in violation and asked residents whether fraternity- or sorority -sanctioned events had been held. Twelve of the sixteen fraternities found in violation refused to confirm or outright denied that an event took place at one or more locations that staff had already confirmed as event sites. The location, date, and time of these events should be easily confirmed by university staff, as Greek organizations are required to register all sponsored events with the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Life. As a result of the documented municipal code violations, the intentional withholding of information, and the refusal to confirm the occurrence of events, we are asking the Office of Student Rights & Responsibilities to investigate whether the Recognized Student Organizations violated Cal Poly's Recognized Student Organization Code of Conduct. An email sharing a link to view the reports outlining the facts regarding each organization will follow this message. Please let me know if additional staff require access to the shared files. Each report details alleged misconduct involving a specific recognized organization. Although previous reports of similar conduct were deemed insufficient to establish a nexus with the Recognized Student Organization Code of Conduct for adjudication, we respectfully urge your office to initiate an investigation into each organization named. These reports have also been individually submitted via the Public Incident Report Form on the Office of Student Rights & Responsibilities webpage to formally initiate investigations. We also request confirmation of the decision regarding whether to move forward with adjudication, as well as copies of all determinations after adjudication is complete. Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or if further clarification is needed. John Mezzapesa Code Enforcement Supervisor The following is related to potential misconduct performed by the Recognized Student Organization known as the InterFraternity Council (IFC). Background: The code enforcement division of the City of San Luis Obispo was recently tasked with proactive efforts on the identification, documentation and enforcement of recruitment events sponsored by fraternities/sororities within the city limits. This investigation includes identifying locations in which fraternity/sorority events have taken place and determining if the use of the property violates the land use regulations set forth in the City's zoning ordinance. As part of the Campus Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act (Assembly Bill 524), each institution of higher education shall require campus -recognized sororities and fraternities to submit to the institution the location, date, and time of any sanctioned event. Recent requests made by the City to Cal Poly's Office of Fraternity & Sorority Life for information regarding the registered events, as required by law, were denied under the determination by the university Public Records Access Officer. The Public Records Access Officer made the determination that the addresses at which events have occurred, which are kept on record in the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Life are not public records and cited privacy concern with sharing the information. Incident Information: The refusal of Cal Poly to disclose the locations in which events have taken place to another government agency has required the code enforcement team to perform independent investigations to obtain this information. During the investigation it was discovered that the fraternity organizations, as members of the InterFraternity Council, were going to provide "RUSH Schedule Cards" during a Kick -Off BBQ event held on the O'Neil Lawn on September 25. The cards were believed to contain the addresses in which advertised events were going to take place and were to be provided for prospective recruitment of the fraternities. A Code Enforcement Technician was tasked with visiting the IFC Kick -Off BBQ to advise the fraternities of city regulations and request a "RUSH Schedule Card" from each fraternity. If these cards were provided to our staff, we would be better able to evaluate whether the use of a property was compliant with the City's land use regulations. During the IFC BBQ the Code Enforcement technician visited each organization and requested a "RUSH Schedule Card". While she was visiting the first few booths each organization had set up, she noticed that a member of the IFC, now known to be IFC President Colin Shea, was quickly visiting each booth ahead of Mrs. Green, advising each fraternity representative to not share the "RUSH Schedule Cards" or other information with her. While some organizations shared the "RUSH Schedule Cards", as Mrs. Green progressed to additional booths, she realized that the organizations were no longer sharing information with her or ignoring her altogether. We ask that the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities investigate the following: 1. Whether misconduct took place in violation of the Recognized Student Organization Code of Conduct (RSOCC) listed as #17 and #19 in the misconduct section of RSO Handbook by: • Advising fraternity members to refuse to provide a RUSH schedule card or other information when asked by a public safety official in their official capacity during an investigation. 17. Failure to Comply. Failure to comply with directions or interference with any university official or any public safety officer while acting in the performance of their duties. 19. Violation of this RSOCC, including: a. Falsification, distortion, or misrepresentation of information related to a student organization discipline matter.