HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRR26294 Batch 1 Emails1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Sunday, May 24, 2026 12:46 PM
To:Shoresman, Michelle
Subject:Re: Neighborhood Livability / Code Enforcement Study Session 5/26/2026
Hi Michelle,
Thank you for your email. Did you read the record I sent that shows the ongoing inefficiencies and
mistakes made within Code Enforcement? The CE Tech is very nice but he has repeatedly
made mistakes that have led to the failure to move cases forward. That is one of the problems. The City
knows where the fraternity houses are but enforcement has not been efficient. Please read about what
has happened with 281 Albert Drive, which is an illustration of what has also happened with other
properties.
It is important for the Council to understand that many of these properties would have ceased
operations by now if the cases were handled properly.
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.”
2
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:
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.
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 of 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.
3
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 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)
4
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.
5
6
7
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)
8
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.)
9
10
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)
11
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
12
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.
13
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.
On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 7:53 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote:
HI Kathie,
Thanks for your email. I will take all these thoughts into consideration as I read the rest of the report.
By the way, I thought the New Times did a nice write up of you and some of the other vocal advocates in our
county on different issues.
Have a good evening.
Michelle
From: kathie walker <
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 12:53 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily
<EFrancis@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman,
Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>
Cc: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Subject: Neighborhood Livability / Code Enforcement Study Session 5/26/2026
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.
14
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
From:Purrington, Teresa
Sent:Friday, May 22, 2026 7:58 AM
To:CityClerk
Subject:FW: Confirmation of Received Attachment of IFC's Proposed Soultions
Attachments:IFC Proposed Solutions - May 26th Study Session.pdf
From: Neal Raghav Parthasarathy <
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 5:06 PM
To: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org>
Subject: Confirmation of Received Attachment of IFC's Proposed Soultions
Hi Teresa,
I wanted to follow up to make sure the attached document for IFC's proposed solutions for the May 26th
special meeting were received successfully, as I do not currently see it included in the agenda
correspondence folder for the 2026-05-26 special meeting.
Could you please confirm whether it was received properly, or if there is anything else I need to do on my
end?
Thank you so much!
Best,
Neal Parthasarathy
Cal Poly IFC President
Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council Members,
My name is Neal Parthasarathy and I am the Cal Poly Interfraternity Council (IFC) President.
Thank you for letting me share my thoughts and ideas.
Our fraternity chapters should not be exempt from City rules. If a chapter violates the noise
ordinance or creates a legitimate public safety issue, enforcement should absolutely follow.
Interfraternity Council (IFC) fully supports enforcement when there are repeated incidents of
noncompliance or situations where neighboring residents are genuinely impacted.
Our concern is whether enforcement is being applied fairly, equally and consistently across the
community.
During Fall 2025 recruitment, Interfraternity Council (IFC) chapters on one side of East Foothill
Boulevard received citations. At the same time, Panhellenic Association (PHA) chapters were
having their recruitment activities in a nearby area but they did not receive similar citations. This
created the appearance of unequal treatment between similar student organizations. Because
of concerns like this, IFC believes enforcement related to gatherings should primarily be
complaint driven unless there is a clear and immediate threat for public safety. IFC also believes
enforcement standards should be applied consistently across all organizations and residences
rather than through fraternity specific oversight structures.
IFC also has concerns about how the City uses chapter apparel, flags, composites, recruitment
materials, guest list systems, public recruitment dates, and social media as indicators for
enforcement. IFC members were told visible Greek Life materials could be used to identify what
the City considers an “illegal fraternity.” Because of this, IFC recommends that citations should
not be based solely on symbols, apparel, recruitment activity, social media, or assumptions tied
to organizational affiliation. Enforcement should instead focus on verified conduct and actual
violations.
IFC acknowledges that historically much of the City’s enforcement has been complaint driven
and responsive to neighborhood concerns. However, many student organizations feel
enforcement has increasingly shifted toward a more proactive and targeted strategy focused on
monitoring fraternity related activity before any actual complaint, neighborhood disruption, or
public safety concern occurs. One related concern we have has to do with the DoorList app
which IFC uses as a guest-list management tool: a critical safety function for our events,
ensuring only intended guests are allowed entry and that a verifiable log of attendees is in place
for any post-event questions or needs. In late Winter Quarter 2025, a Code Enforcement Officer
accessed the DoorList app in order to view fraternity guest lists and identify social events
connected to specific addresses. Although the app’s guest list settings were not properly
restricted and allowed individuals outside the Cal Poly environment to join, many students were
uncomfortable with guest list information being used in this way for enforcement purposes.
Administrative citations and land use violations were later issued, with some fines exceeding
$2,600.
IFC believes administrative event management tools and guest list systems should not
themselves become the basis for enforcement action. Student organizations should be able to
use risk management and guest management systems without concern that those tools are
being monitored in ways that discourage lawful organizational activity.
IFC also has concerns regarding delayed and escalating enforcement processes. In Winter
2025, Delta Chi reportedly received a noise citation approximately three minutes after quiet
hours began during a situation involving only a small number of students playing basketball.
That citation later became the basis for a CUP review process costing the organization more
than $8,000 in legal fees. Because San Luis Obispo is a college town with a large student
population surrounding California Polytechnic State University, IFC believes noise enforcement
policies should realistically reflect the nature of student life while still protecting neighboring
residents and addressing legitimate public safety concerns.
IFC therefore recommends maintaining unrestricted activity standards from 7 AM to 10 PM on
weekdays and until 12 AM on Fridays and Saturdays while continuing overnight property line
enforcement standards from 10 PM to 7 AM on weekdays and 12 AM to 7 AM on Fridays and
Saturdays. IFC also recommends encouraging officers to issue verbal warnings and provide a
reasonable 15 to 30 minute correction window before issuing citations when there is no
immediate safety threat. Organizations that proactively cooperate with officers and immediately
correct issues should receive consideration before escalating penalties are imposed. IFC also
recommends limiting enforcement to one citation for a single ongoing violation at a time. Fines
should be capped and sequenced to give fraternities a reasonable opportunity to comply, before
more penalties are imposed.
In practice, this would mean:
● A backyard BBQ with music playing at a moderate level during the afternoon would not
automatically risk a citation just because it is audible from the sidewalk or a nearby yard.
● A birthday party hosted by students with people talking, laughing, and music during early
evening hours would not be treated as a violation unless it becomes genuinely disruptive
or excessive.
● A fraternity hosting a philanthropy or recruitment-related social event during the day
could operate without constant concern that routine activity will trigger enforcement
based solely on audibility at the property line.
● Normal weekend activities like people coming and going, music at reasonable levels,
and social interaction would be treated as normal and expected things in a college-town
residential environment.
Also, land use notices related to Fall 2025 recruitment were reportedly posted during winter
break when most students were out on winter break, and nearly three months after the alleged
incidents occurred, with multiple citations placed on single notices. IFC believes citations should
be issued within a reasonable timeframe, such as 48 to 72 hours after the alleged violation, so
organizations have a fair opportunity to respond and correct issues.
IFC also believes the City should eliminate fraternity specific CUP requirements and the current
fraternity definition within municipal code. IFC members were told that any organization meeting
the City’s definition could theoretically be treated similarly to a fraternity, yet IFC has not seen
this applied consistently in practice. This creates confusion for both Greek Life and other
student organizations. No student organization should be presumed responsible for unrelated
conduct simply because activity involves students near campus. Rather than maintaining a
separate long term oversight structure tied specifically to fraternity identity, IFC believes the City
should focus on consistent behavior based enforcement standards applied equally across the
community, similar to cities like Santa Barbara where fraternities are referenced more generally
within broader zoning definitions.
From our review of different municipal code structures, San Luis Obispo seems to have a more
ongoing fraternity specific CUP oversight system than some other California college
communities, including Santa Barbara and Isla Vista near University of California, Santa
Barbara. IFC believes SLO should continue moving toward a more behavior focused approach
that still protects residents while recognizing the realities of a college town.
Finally, IFC encourages the City to evaluate whether zoning and land use policies around
California Polytechnic State University realistically reflect the presence of a large 18 to 22 year
old student population. Approximately one third of San Luis Obispo residents are Cal Poly
students, representing roughly 14,000 people living within the community. A college town
functions differently from a traditional suburban neighborhood, and land use policy should
recognize that reality while still protecting residents and addressing legitimate safety concerns.
Student oriented areas should support a positive and realistic college environment within
reasonable community standards.
For example, California State University, Chico utilizes a fraternity and sorority housing overlay
approach near campus that recognizes the unique realities of student living patterns and
university adjacent housing. IFC recommends that the City explore similar planning tools,
including the potential creation of a broader student overlay zone in appropriate areas near
campus. A student overlay zone could establish tailored standards and expectations that better
reflect the realities of a college community, while still addressing neighborhood compatibility,
safety, noise, and accountability concerns. Looking at approaches like Chico’s could help San
Luis Obispo better balance long term neighborhood interests with the realities of a large student
population.
Taken together, IFC’s recommendations are intended to promote fair, consistent, and behavior
based enforcement standards across the community. These recommendations include
prioritizing complaint driven enforcement, encouraging warnings and opportunities for corrective
action before escalating penalties, limiting identity based enforcement practices, eliminating
fraternity specific CUP oversight structures, and ensuring zoning and land use policies
realistically reflect the realities of a college community while still protecting residents and
addressing legitimate public safety concerns.
At the end of the day, IFC is simply asking for fairness, consistency, and equal application of the
rules. Enforcement should be based on conduct, not identity.
Thank you,
Neal Parthasarathy
Cal Poly Interfraternity Council (IFC) President
1
From:SLO <noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Friday, May 22, 2026 1:37 AM
To:Salem, Rami
Subject:Ask SLO Request #: 16540 is 7 days past due
Request # 16540 from the Government Outreach System is 7 days late.
Request type: Problem
Request area: Land Use Violation
Reported by:
Description: Illegal Land Use, Continued fraternity use at property already documented to be
operating unlawfully as a fraternity in an R-1 zone. Fraternity party "Alpha Sigma
Phi Biza" held on Saturday, May 9 at 1218 Bond Street. Event listed on DoorList.
Date and address confirmed on post, shown.
Expected Close Date: 05/15/2026
Click here to access the request
1
From:Marx, Jan
Sent:Friday, May 22, 2026 12:41 PM
To:'Jan Marx'
Subject:FW: IFC Recommendations for May 26 Code Enforcement Study Session (Item 5A)
Attachments:IFC Proposed Solutions - May 26th Study Session.pdf
From: Neal Raghav Parthasarathy <
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 9:54 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Cc: Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org>
Subject: IFC Recommendations for May 26 Code Enforcement Study Session (Item 5A)
Dear Council Members,
On behalf of the Cal Poly Interfraternity Council(IFC), thank you for taking the time to engage with IFC and
allow us the opportunity to share our thoughts and ideas throughout this process. We appreciate the
City’s willingness to maintain open communication and hear directly from the student community as
discussions continue regarding fraternity housing, code enforcement, and related policies.
Ahead of the May 26 Special Meeting and Code Enforcement Study Session (Item 5A), IFC has prepared
an attached document outlining the changes and recommendations we would like the City Council to
consider. We appreciate your willingness to review our ideas in advance and consider student
perspectives as part of these discussions.
In addition to the attached document, seven-chapter presidents will also be providing verbal public
comment during the meeting, sharing their experiences with code enforcement and the current
municipal code.
Thank you again for your time, consideration, and continued engagement with IFC.
Best,
Neal Parthasarathy
Cal Poly IFC President
1
From:SLO <noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Friday, May 22, 2026 1:37 AM
To:Salem, Rami
Subject:Ask SLO Request #: 16546 is 7 days past due
Request # 16546 from the Government Outreach System is 7 days late.
Request type: Problem
Request area: Land Use Violation
Reported by:
Description: Illegal fraternity event held at 1218 Bond (zoned R -1) on 1/15/2026. Posted on
Cal Poly Now at this link: https://now.calpoly.edu/event/12031248 and also
posted on DoorList. This property has been already determined to be operating
unlawfully as a fraternity, therefore the use has been established and has not
ceased or been abated. (It does not take an admission to verify the unlawful
fraternity event.)
Expected Close Date: 05/15/2026
Click here to access the request
1
From:Neal Raghav Parthasarathy <
Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2026 9:54 PM
To:E-mail Council Website
Cc:Purrington, Teresa
Subject:IFC Recommendations for May 26 Code Enforcement Study Session (Item 5A)
Attachments:IFC Proposed Solutions - May 26th Study Session.pdf
Dear Council Members,
On behalf of the Cal Poly Interfraternity Council(IFC), thank you for taking the time to engage with IFC and
allow us the opportunity to share our thoughts and ideas throughout this process. We appreciate the
City’s willingness to maintain open communication and hear directly from the student community as
discussions continue regarding fraternity housing, code enforcement, and related policies.
Ahead of the May 26 Special Meeting and Code Enforcement Study Session (Item 5A), IFC has prepared
an attached document outlining the changes and recommendations we would like the City Council to
consider. We appreciate your willingness to review our ideas in advance and consider student
perspectives as part of these discussions.
In addition to the attached document, seven-chapter presidents will also be providing verbal public
comment during the meeting, sharing their experiences with code enforcement and the current
municipal code.
Thank you again for your time, consideration, and continued engagement with IFC.
Best,
Neal Parthasarathy
Cal Poly IFC President
1
From:Neal Raghav Parthasarathy <
Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2026 12:30 PM
Cc:Purrington, Teresa
Subject:IFC Proposal and Recommendations for May 26 Study Session
Attachments:IFC Proposed Solutions - May 26th Study Session.pdf
Dear Council Members,
On behalf of the Cal Poly Interfraternity Council, thank you for taking the time to engage with IFC and
allow us the opportunity to share our thoughts and ideas throughout this process. We appreciate the
City’s willingness to maintain open communication and hear directly from the student community as
discussions continue regarding fraternity housing and related policies.
IFC has prepared a document outlining the changes and recommendations we would like to see
considered, and we wanted to share it with all of you in advance of the May 26th special meeting. We
appreciate your willingness to review our ideas ahead of time and consider student perspectives as part
of these discussions.
In addition to the attached document, seven-chapter presidents will also be sharing public comment
verbally during the meeting, sharing their experiences their chapters have had with code enforcement
and the current municipal code.
Thank you again for your time, consideration, and continued engagement with IFC.
Best,
Neal Parthasarathy
Cal Poly IFC President
1
From:Neal Raghav Parthasarathy <
Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2026 5:06 PM
To:Purrington, Teresa
Subject:Confirmation of Received Attachment of IFC's Proposed Soultions
Attachments:IFC Proposed Solutions - May 26th Study Session.pdf
Hi Teresa,
I wanted to follow up to make sure the attached document for IFC's proposed solutions for the May 26th
special meeting were received successfully, as I do not currently see it included in the agenda
correspondence folder for the 2026-05-26 special meeting.
Could you please confirm whether it was received properly, or if there is anything else I need to do on my
end?
Thank you so much!
Best,
Neal Parthasarathy
Cal Poly IFC President
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2026 12:53 PM
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
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
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.
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2026 6:28 PM
To:Mezzapesa, John
Cc:Brett Cross
Subject:Re: Current list of Fraternity and Sorority location
To help
protect your
privacy,
Microsoft
Office
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture from the Internet. ScreenRecording_04-01-2026 18-22-03_1 (1).mov
Regarding Sigma Pi, your list is missing 320 Grand Ave and 2045 Slack Street. The addresses are shown
on Doorlist (attached). 320 Grand is also on SLOPD's weekly lists as a confirmed address of Sigma Pi
events. I would have to go through them to see if 2045 Slack was on the lists, but it is shown for an event
on Doorlist, as you can see on the video scrolling through the events.
On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 6:02 PM kathie walker < wrote:
Thank you, John. I have a couple of questions:
1. Where is Sigma Pi on the list? It has five locations.
2. Most importantly, your email says you didn't have enough evidence to warrant a violation. Did you
have the weekly lists of addresses of the 'FSL approved' fraternity parties that were being sent to SLOPD
before every weekend? (Many of the addresses are within those lists so it would have been easy to
verify.)
On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 5:53 PM Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Brett,
I have included Kathie on this response because I got sidetracked and didn't respond to her previous
email.
The list of all locations can be found below. After reviewing the list more closely, accounting for
addresses that are on the same parcel, the number are as follows:
61 Locations that have been confirmed as operating as a fraternity without a current use permit
12 Locations that received an advisory notice in 2023 during initial identification per the first
AB524 report. We may have had some evidence an event occurred at these but not enough
evidence to warrant a violation.
9 Locations that hold current use permits
20 other locations that are suspected to have been used as a fraternity but we lack evidence to
show a violation.
Organization Name
2
Address
(RED if no use
permit
Date of Last
Action by CE
Alpha Chi Omega 1464 Foothill 12/18/2025
Alpha Epsilon Pi 280 California 11/13/2024
331 Hathway 3/13/2024
Alpha Gamma Rho 132 California None
Alpha Kappa Delta Phi - None
Alpha Omicron Pi 190 Stenner 12/17/2025
Alpha Phi 1290 Foothill None
Alpha Sigma Phi 1218 Bond 2/25/2026
299 Albert 3/5/2024
Beta Theta Pi
1327 Foothill 10/10/2025
1621 McCollum 1/17/2026
377 Albert None
1220 Fredericks 10/10/2025
Chi Delta Theta - None
Chi Omega 700 Grand 12/17/2025
Delta Chi 1236 Monte
Vista
1/17/2026
Delta Gamma 1328 Foothill 12/18/2025
Delta Sigma Phi 244 California 2/19/2026
1688 Mill 11/21/2024
Delta Upsilon
720 Foothill 2/13/2026
1990 Loomis 12/23/2025
281 Albert 2/20/2026
388 Chaplin 2/21/2026
1686 Loomis None
1861 Slack None
1700 Fredericks 4/25/2024
Gamma Phi Beta 1326 Higuera None
Gamma Zeta Alpha - None
Kappa Alpha Theta 180 California 12/18/2025
Kappa Kappa Gamma 1238 Foothill 12/23/2025
Kappa Sigma
281 Hathway 5/31/2024
148 Orange 10/21/2025
322 Hathway 10/21/2025
146 Stenner 2/20/2026
293 Albert None
1861 Hope 5/7/2024
1990 McCollum 5/13/2024
Lamda Chi Alpha
1264 Foothill 12/23/2025
1241 Monte
Vista
5/31/2024
3
1243 Monte
Vista
3/5/2024
1249 Monte
Vista
None
1251 Monte
Vista
None
12 Hathway 12/23/2025
171 Orange 1/17/2026
253 Albert None
278 Albert 3/5/2024
285 Chaplin None
178 Chaplin None
220 Kentucky None
Lamda Sigma Gamma - None
Lamda Theta Alpha - None
Lamda Theta Phi - None
Nu Alpha Kappa - None
Phi Beta Sigma - None
Phi Delta Theta
260 Chaplin 1/29/2025
554 Foothill 2/12/2026
470 Grand None
251 Highland 7/17/2024
568 Ellen 7/17/2024
Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI)
1229 Fredericks 12/23/2025
135 Crandall 10/23/2025
1254 Bond 5/31/2024
1256 Bond None
Phi Kappa Psi
1335 Foothill None
1276 Bond 11/25/2025
2058 Loomis 10/23/2025
1271 Stafford None
237 Albert 7/17/2024
246 Grand None
1740 Fredericks 5/7/2024
343 Henderson 11/20/2025
Phi Sigma Kappa
1908 Loomis 2/19/2026
1027 Murray 2/21/2026
348 Hathway 1/17/2026
Pi Kappa Phi 501 Kentucky 1/17/2026
66 Rafael None
Sigma Kappa 615 Grand None
395 Grand 1/27/2025
Sigma Nu 1304 Foothill 1/17/2026
190 Crandall 9/26/2025
4
231 Kentucky 12/3/2025
290 Chaplin 12/26/2025
1292 Foothill None
132 Crandall None
1632 Fredericks 1/28/2025
301 Hathway 3/14/2024
1541 Slack None
1841 Slack 5/13/2024
385 Chaplin 1/17/2026
Sigma Omega Nu - None
Sigma Omega Phi 1486 Oceanaire 12/17/2025
Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays 12/4/2025
Sigma Pi
124 Stenner 12/26/2025
1525 Slack 1/17/2026
1555 Slack 12/29/2025
Theta Chi
385 Albert 12/4/2025
1820 Hope 12/23/2025
1844 McCollum 12/9/2025
250 Grand 12/29/2025
1441 Slack 5/7/2024
1661 McCollum 7/17/2024
1350 Stafford 1/29/2026
334 Foothill 2/6/2026
340 Foothill None
496 Kentucky 1/12/2024
Zeta Beta Tau
648 Graves 1/16/2026
654 Graves 1/16/2026
658 Graves 1/16/2026
1646 Fredericks 12/17/2025
2053 Hays 1/17/2026
1928 Garfield 10/29/2024
2044 McCollum None
244 Albert None
205 Albert 6/4/2025
212 Albert 5/7/2024
2044 Loomis 5/7/2024
323 Grand 1/28/2025
Zeta Phi Beta - -
John Mezzapesa
Code Enforcement Supervisor
5
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development
Building and Safety
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668
E jmezzapesa@slocity.org
T 805.781.7179
From: Brett Cross <
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 4:44 PM
To: Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org>
Subject: Current list of Fraternity and Sorority location
John, I was CC'd on this email you sent to Kathie Walker on the 13th. That's where I got the information I cited at last
night's City Council meeting. Can you provide the addresses, which are more than 80 apparently, that the City currently
has that were identified, along with the other 35 potential locations?
During RQN's Board meeting today we were discussing next week's council meeting and think it would be important to
present a map of the fraternity and sorority locations throughout the City that staff has identified. So, we'd like to put
that together and present during the public comments section and send it along to the council as well.
Or, I guess you could make a map.
Is that doable?
Thanks,
Brett
On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 10:52 AM Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Kathie,
These lists were provided to the City by Cal Poly in October 2023. Together with the AB 524 report, they served
as the foundation for many of the initial notices issued in early 2024.
Since that time, the City has developed a separate list of locations through permit record reviews and ongoing
enforcement efforts. That list currently includes more than 80 locations, representing fraternities and sororities
across multiple organizations, that have been identified as either operating with a permit or operating in
violation of the Municipal Code without the required permit. In addition, approximately 35 other locations have
been identified as potential sites that have not been verified as being in violation.
John Mezzapesa
Code Enforcement Supervisor
To help
protect your
privacy,
Microsoft
Office
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture from the Internet.City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development
Building and Safety
1
From:Neal Raghav Parthasarathy <
Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2026 4:05 PM
To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John
Subject:IFC Proposal and Recommendations for May 26 Study Session
Attachments:IFC Proposed Solutions - May 26th Study Session.pdf
Hi Timmi and John,
Thank you both for continuing to work with IFC, providing guidance, maintaining open communication,
and allowing us the opportunity to express our thoughts and ideas throughout this process. We truly
appreciate the time and effort both of you have dedicated to helping us navigate these discussions and
prepare for the May 26th special meeting.
IFC has prepared a document outlining the changes and recommendations we would like to see
considered, and we wanted to share it with both of you in advance of our presentation on the 26th. We
appreciate your willingness to review our ideas ahead of time and your continued guidance throughout
this process.
We will also be sharing our comments directly with Council, both in writing and verbally, prior to and
during the meeting.
Thank you again for your support and collaboration.
Best,
Neal Parthasarathy
Cal Poly IFC President
1
From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2026 4:51 PM
To:McDonald, Whitney; Collins, Scott
Subject:FW: IFC Proposal and Recommendations for May 26 Study Session
Attachments:IFC Proposed Solutions - May 26th Study Session.pdf
FYI – they will also be sending to council.
Timothea (Timmi) Tway
Director of Community Development
Community Development
919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E TTway@slocity.org
T 805.781.7187
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Neal Raghav Parthasarathy <
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 4:05 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org>
Subject: IFC Proposal and Recommendations for May 26 Study Session
Hi Timmi and John,
Thank you both for continuing to work with IFC, providing guidance, maintaining open communication,
and allowing us the opportunity to express our thoughts and ideas throughout this process. We truly
appreciate the time and effort both of you have dedicated to helping us navigate these discussions and
prepare for the May 26th special meeting.
IFC has prepared a document outlining the changes and recommendations we would like to see
considered, and we wanted to share it with both of you in advance of our presentation on the 26th. We
appreciate your willingness to review our ideas ahead of time and your continued guidance throughout
this process.
We will also be sharing our comments directly with Council, both in writing and verbally, prior to and
during the meeting.
Thank you again for your support and collaboration.
2
Best,
Neal Parthasarathy
Cal Poly IFC President
1
From:Mezzapesa, John
Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2026 4:38 PM
To:Buckley, Nick; Sheats, Steven; Salem, Rami
Subject:Fw: IFC Proposal and Recommendations for May 26 Study Session
Attachments:IFC Proposed Solutions - May 26th Study Session.pdf
From: Neal Raghav Parthasarathy <
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 4:05 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org>
Subject: IFC Proposal and Recommendations for May 26 Study Session
Hi Timmi and John,
Thank you both for continuing to work with IFC, providing guidance, maintaining open communication,
and allowing us the opportunity to express our thoughts and ideas throughout this process. We truly
appreciate the time and effort both of you have dedicated to helping us navigate these discussions and
prepare for the May 26th special meeting.
IFC has prepared a document outlining the changes and recommendations we would like to see
considered, and we wanted to share it with both of you in advance of our presentation on the 26th. We
appreciate your willingness to review our ideas ahead of time and your continued guidance throughout
this process.
We will also be sharing our comments directly with Council, both in writing and verbally, prior to and
during the meeting.
Thank you again for your support and collaboration.
Best,
Neal Parthasarathy
Cal Poly IFC President
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2026 1:53 PM
To:Marx, Jan; Stewart, Erica A; Francis, Emily; Boswell, Mike; Shoresman, Michelle; E-mail
Council Website
Cc:Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Sandra Rowley; Bulbul Rajagopal; Dittenber, Sadie;
Stewjenkins Info; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre; Steven Walker
Subject:Code Enforcement
I am writing a report but wanted to give you a glimpse into the failed code enforcement system related to
illegal fraternity operations throughout the City. This property at 281 Albert Drive is indicative of many,
many other illegal fraternity operations. As I told you in a previous report, the Code Enforcement Tech
continually makes mistakes that lead to the failure to move forward toward enforcemen t and abatement.
I will forward you the entire report once it is finished:
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 Conditional Use
Permits 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. It’s no longer legal for
their fraternity signs and Greek letters to be displayed on the property, but that isn’t enforced either.
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 are
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.
2
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
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.
3
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:
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.
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 of 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.
4
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 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.
5
6
7
8
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)
9
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.)
10
11
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)
12
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
13
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.
14
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.
1
From:Dietrick, Christine
Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2026 5:52 PM
To:Belghoul, Amel; Symens, Sadie; Holcomb, Kelly; Kersten, Markie
Subject:FW: Code Enforcement
From: kathie walker <
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2026 1:53 PM
To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>;
Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website
<emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Cc: Carolyn Smith < ; Brett Cross < ; Sandra Rowley
< ; Bulbul Rajagopal < ; Dittenber, Sadie
< ; Stewjenkins Info < ; Mila Vujovich-LaBarre
< ; Steven Walker <
Subject: Code Enforcement
2
I am writing a report but wanted to give you a glimpse into the failed code enforcement system related to
illegal fraternity operations throughout the City. This property at 281 Albert Drive is indicative of many,
many other illegal fraternity operations. As I told you in a previous report, the Code Enforcement Tech
continually makes mistakes that lead to the failure to move forward toward enforcement and abatement.
I will forward you the entire report once it is finished:
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 Conditional Use
Permits 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. It’s no longer legal for
their fraternity signs and Greek letters to be displayed on the property, but that isn’t enforced either.
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 are
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
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
3
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:
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;
4
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.
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 of 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 Upsilon
registered a party which was approved by Cal Poly for May 2, 2025, listing 100 expected guests. Although
5
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.
6
7
8
9
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)
10
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.)
11
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
14
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.
15
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.
City of San Luis Obispo, City Atto rney’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.78 1.7140, slocity.org
May 18, 2026
Dominic Alonso
501 Kentucky St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Via First Class Mail and Certified Mail
Email to:
Re: APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION # 42756
CITATION UPHELD IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
To Dominic Alonso:
At your administrative citation appeal hearing on May 7, 2026, Hearing Officer Sharon Whitney
reviewed the evidence and made the determination indicated above.
The hearing officer’s findings are attached.
Pursuant to Government Code section 53069.4, you may seek judicial review of this decision by
filing a further appeal with the San Luis Obispo Superior Court within twenty calendar days after
service of this notice of decision and paying the filing fee as required by Government Code section
70615 to the San Luis Obispo Superior Court. If you file an appeal pursuant to Government Code
section 53069.4(b)(1), you must serve either in person or via first-class mail on the City a copy of the
notice of appeal. If no appeal is filed with the San Luis Obispo Superior Court within the time
period set forth above, this notice of decision shall be deemed final.
Unless you file an appeal with the San Luis Superior Court, your fine amount of $500 is due to
be paid no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this letter. If paying by check, make the
check or money order out to “City of San Luis Obispo” and mail to: Finance Department, 990
Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. You may also call in a debit/credit card payment to
Finance at (805) 781-7124. Make sure to have the citation number ready when you call. If
payment is not received after thirty days, the matter will be turned over to the City’s collection
agency.
Sincerely,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant
City Attorney’s Office
Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision
HEARING DECISION ON ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION APPEAL
City of San Luis Obispo, California
In the Matter of Dominic Alonso, Tenant
1. Citation number: 42756
2. Location of cited violation: 501 Kentucky Street, San Luis Obispo, California
3. Date of cited violation: January 16, 2026
4. Name and address of person cited: KCB Rental Holdings LLC,
5. Description of cited violation:
a. SLO City Municipal Code section 17.10.020
b. Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses—Unpermitted Use, 2nd and 3rd
Citation
c. Fine Assessments: $500, $1000; Total Amount Due: $1,500.
6. Date and Time of Hearing: May 7, 2026, 3 PM
7. Persons Present: Sharon G. Whitney, Hearing Officer; Amel Belghoul, Legal
Assistant/City Attorney’s Office; Dominic Alonso, Appellant; CDD staff: John
Mezzapesa, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Rami Salem, Code Enforcement
Officer
8. CITY’S EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
• Community Development Department’s Code Case Activity Report (2 pages)
Page 1.
1) Opened Date: This code enforcement report was opened
10/01/2025, assigned to Rami Salem.
2) Closed Date: There is no Closed Date.
3) Notice of Violation Date: 11/26/2025, sent to property owner and
tenants by Rami Salem.
4) First administration citation date: 12/23/2025, sent to PO
[Property Owner] via First Class and certified mail and posted on
site; sent to current resident via First Class mail. EVIDENCE OF
THIS CITATION IS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.
Page 2.
5) Inspection by John Mezzapesa for Activity 1/16/2026:
Comments—
“Inspections were completed on January 16, 2026 at 4:17 PM and
January 17, 2026 at 6 PM by Code Enforcement supervisor J.
Mezzapesa. During both inspections several individuals were
observed in the front yard area. During RUSH events, fraternity
members are known to be near the entrance of a property to
check-in and/or greet prospective recruits. Additionally, during
both events, several individuals, many wearing name tags, were
observed entering the property. Name tags are known to be
utilized by prospective recruits while attending advertised RUSH
events. Given events were advertised from 5-7 pm on 1/16/26 and
5-8 pm on 1/17/26 by Pi Kappa Phi and, the property has been
previously identified to be used as a fraternity and, the typical
RUSH set up/use of name tags indicative of a RUSH event was
observed, it was determined that the property was more likely than
not being use[d] as a fraternity at both events.
6) 03/13/2026: Second administrative citation was generated and
mailed first class and certified mail, sent to property owner and
current residents and posted on site. EVIDENCE OF THIS
CITATION IS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
7) 03/13/2026: Third administrative citation was generated and
mailed first class and certified mail, sent to property owner and
current residents and posted on site. EVIDENCE OF THIS
CITATION IS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
• ADVERTISING EVIDENCE IS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD:
1) Pi Kappa Phi advertised a Winter RUSH schedule for 2026 that
included activity for 1/16/2026, 5-7 PM, titled “Tri-Tip and
Tossin’; and 1/17/2026, 5-8 PM, titled “Playoff Watch Party.”
2) Photocopied Photograph of 1/16/2026 at 4:17 PM correlates with
the 1/16/2026 investigative narrative; no similar photographic
evidence is in the record for the 1/17/2026 event.
• CDD also provided SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS:
1). INFORMATION SHEET (Administrative Citation Appeal
Hearing (Unpermitted Fraternities/Sororities)—its purpose is to help
clarify the evidentiary and legal basis for determining that the subject
property was being used as a fraternity, as defined by the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC), and therefore constitutes a
prohibited or unpermitted land use in the applicable zoning area. It
also makes reference to relevant provisions of the California
Education Code for the purpose of interpreting the occurrence of
“meetings” or “gatherings.”
2) SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION—ADDENDUM (Use of
Event Management Applications (e.g. “DoorList”) as Evidence—its
purpose is to clarify the evidentiary relevance of event management
applications…in evaluating whether a property is being used as a
fraternity or sorority as defined by the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code (SLOMC). It is intended to support administrative record and
provide additional context for evaluating documented evidence.
9. APPELLANT’S WRITTEN REASON FOR APPEAL [QUOTED BELOW]:
“I am appealing on the grounds the second and third citations were
cited on the same day. I believe in violation of the Municipal Code
1.24.050 D. I am also appealing that we were not given notice of the
second citation before we received the third, in violation of the
Municipal Code 1.24.050 (F).
Section 1.24.050 (D) suggests that each day may constitute an
additional violation for a citation. I have not found in municipal code
17.10.020 where this specific violation would be an exception to the
rule in 1.24.050 (D). Therefore, this citation is in violation of code
and should be revoked or reissued with only the second citation. This
applies because both citations are on the same day. Also, since these
violations were issued in tandem code 1.24.050 (F) is violated. We
were not given a right to fix the citation or appeal the citation when
cited for a second time. After receiving a second citation we should
have been given the chance to fix or appeal the citation before
receiving a third citation. This is according to 1.24.050 (F). For this
reason,, I once more claim this citation should be revoked or reissued
with only the second citation. Thank you.
10. APPELLANT’S TESTIMONY DURING THE HEARING: Dominic Alonzo,
tenant, stands by his written appeal but stated that he submitted his written appeal
before he received and/or read the full narrative of the CDD’s commentary about
its inspection on 1/17/2026. Moreover, he reiterates that because the
Administrative Citation lacked a statement that a violation occurred on the 17th of
January, he felt that procedurally it was unfair to be fined for this violation
[third]. He testified that he planned to correct/cease all “suspicious” or
unpermitted activity.
11. CODE ENFORCEMENT’S TESTIMONY DURING HEARING: This case
will remain open for 12 months, during which time they will continue to
investigate for possible land use code violation of unpermitted use [“meetings”
and “gatherings”] by a Cal Poly recognized fraternity.
12. RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS USED FOR APPEAL—QUOTED
BELOW.
1.24.050 Abatement of unlawful conditions--Notice
D. Continuing Violations. Except as provided elsewhere in the municipal code,
each day a violation of this code exists shall be a separate and distinct violation
and may be subject to a separate administrative fine. … An administrative
citation may charge a violation for one or more days or hours, as applicable, on
which a violation exists and for violation of one or more applicable code
sections.
F. Contents of Notice of Violation, Notice to Correct and/or Administrative
Citation. The director shall generally issue a notice of violation, notice to correct
and/or administrative citation to person(s) responsible for a code violation as set
forth in Section 1.24.030(L). The administrative citation guidelines as approved
by the city council pursuant to Section 1.24.010 shall, among other things,
identify those items of information which must be contained in the notice of
violation and/or administrative citation issued to persons and alleging a violation
of the municipal code, but must, at a minimum, inform the responsible person of
the nature of the violation charged, any right to correct the violation, and/or the
right to appeal any citation, as well as the process by which to verify to the city
the correction of violation(s) and/or the process to appeal citations.
13. HEARING OFFICER ANALYSIS AND DECISION
In my interpretation of D above regarding “continuing violations” it is not violated
by citation 42756 because it specifically anticipates that each day a violation exists
shall be a separate and distinct violation and may be subject to a separate
administrative fine….An administrative citation may charge a violation for one or
more days or hours, as applicable, on which a violation exists and for violation of
one or more applicable code sections. [Emphasis added.]
• Moreover, both the Notice to Correct and the Citation use highlighting
mechanisms to assert that additional violations for the same code section may
be subject to a separate administrative fine.
• Thust, both the Notice to Correct issued on 11/26/2025 and Citation 42756,
taken together, are procedurally not in violation of Section D, contrary to the
appellant’s argument. I believe the same can be said with respect to Section F.
• With that said, there is information missing from Citation 42756 that does
raise some due process concerns. Namely what is missing from this citation is
notice that the date of 1/17/2026 [Third Citation] is included and, thus, the
correlating added daily fine for the same code violation is, strictly speaking, a
due process concern.
• Moreover, while the CDD provided evidence of an advertised RUSH event
for 1/17/26 and a comment that this event was investigated and observed
during the relevant time period, CDD did not include in the Administrative
Record any supplemental photocopied photographic evidence of that event as
it occurred. I note that this is different from the investigation, observation,
and advertised RUSH event, which did have supplemental photocopied
photographic evidence at the property.
• While I am not convinced that the lack of photographic evidence for the
RUSH event at the property on 1/17/2026 is a fatal flaw for the
Administrative Record, I remain concerned because of the procedural nature
of appellant’s appeal, namely that the Citation 42756 did not list the date of
1/17/2026, i.e., the date of Third violation, which may be subject to a separate
administrative fine.
• I am of the opinion that I, as Hearing Officer, must uphold the Second
Violation for 1/16/2026 because the City and CDD have met its prima facie
burden with a preponderance of the evidence.
• However, I am of the opinion that I may revoke the third citation, which lacks
the date of violation, 1/17/2026, uphold the appeal for this Third citation and
its request to dismiss it and its fine of $1000.
CONCLUSIONS
1. I uphold 2nd citation with given citation date of 1/16/2026 and fine of
$500. Payment is due.
2. I revoke 3rd citation which has no given date on citation form and
revoke the fine of $1000.
Signed: Hearing Officer, Sharon G. Whitney, 5/8/2026.
PROOF OF SERVICE
- 1 -
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
I am employed in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. I am over the age of
18, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California 93401.
On May 18, 2026, I caused the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DECISION to be served on the interested parties in this action
by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes, addressed as follows:
Dominic Alonso
501 Kentucky St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Email:
[X] By United States Mail: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope addressed as
indicated above. I am readily familiar with the office’s practice of collection and
processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same
day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served,
service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
than one day after the date of service.
[X] By Certified United States Mail: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope
addressed as indicated above. I completed and attached to the envelope the additional form
required for this type of delivery. I am readily familiar with the office’s practice of
collection and processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal
service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of
the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter
date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
[X] Courtesy Copy by E-mail: I caused this document to be transmitted via e-mail to the e-
mail address listed above.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 18, 2026, at San Luis Obispo, California.
_____________________________
Amel Belghoul
City of San Luis Obispo, City Attorney’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7140, slocity.org
May 18, 2026
Henry Brown
Via First Class and Certified Mail
Email:
Re: NOTICE OF DECISION
Appeal of Administrative Citation #42755 - CITATION UPHELD
To Lenz Family Trust:
To Henry Brown:
On or after May 7, 2026, Hearing Officer Sharon Whitney reviewed your administrative citation
appeal, considered the evidence, and made the determination indicated above.
Hearing Officer Whitney’s findings are attached.
Pursuant to Government Code section 53069.4, you may seek judicial review of this decision by
filing a further appeal with the San Luis Obispo Superior Court within twenty calendar days after
service of this notice of decision and paying the filing fee as required by Government Code section
70615 to the San Luis Obispo Superior Court. If you file an appeal pursuant to Government Code
section 53069.4(b)(1), you must serve either in person or via first-class mail on the City a copy of the
notice of appeal. If no appeal is filed with the San Luis Obispo Superior Court within the time
period set forth above, this notice of decision shall be deemed final.
Unless you file an appeal with the San Luis Superior Court, your fine amount of $1,500 is due
to be paid no later than Thirty (30) days from the date of this letter. If paying by check, make
the check or money order out to “City of San Luis Obispo” and mail to: Finance Department,
990 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. You may also call in a debit/credit card payment to
Finance at (805) 781-7124. Make sure to have the citation number ready when you call. If the
fine remains unpaid after thirty days, the matter will be turned over to the City’s collection agency.
Sincerely,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant
City Attorney’s Office
Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision
HEARING DECISION ON ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION APPEAL
City of San Luis Obispo, California
In the Matter of Henry Brown
1. Citation number: 42755
2. Location of cited violation: 388 Chaplin, San Luis Obispo, California
3. Date of cited violation: February 6, 2026 & February 21, 2026
4. Name and address of person cited: Lenz Family Trust,
5. Description of cited violation:
a. SLO City Municipal Code section 17.10.020
b. Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses—Unpermitted Use, 2nd and 3rd
Citation
c. Fine Assessments: $500, $1000; Total Amount Due: $1,500.
6. Date and Time of Hearing: Hearing Waived; Decision On the Record
7. CITY’S EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
• Community Development Department (CDD) Code Case Activity Reports (2
reports)
1) First Report: Case Opened Date: 1/29/2025.
2) First Report: Case Closed Date: 8/06/25
3) First Report: Inspection Date: 1/29/25 for Activity Named
1/18/2025—The comment is somewhat vague, but it appears that
the “inspection failed” because it observed fraternal unsanctioned
event at the property (rush event) resulted in a land use permit
violation.
4) Accordingly, Rami Salem generated a Notice of Violation (NOV)
on 1/29/2025 to the property owner’s address, with a copy to the
tenants, plus a Director’s Review form.
5) On 2/05/2925 Rami Salem held a Meeting regarding “Activity
01/31/2025,” and spoke with tenants and fraternity members. This
resulted in an exchange of information and the process of holding
an unsanctioned event in a non-permitted property and why it is a
land use violation.
6) On 08/06/2025, Rami Salem, CLOSED this report because he had
not observed fraternal activity in the location for more than 30
consecutive days.
7) All of the above correlates with Administration Citation 42026, a
“First Citation, fine $100,” issued December 23, 2025, AND IS
NOT RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL FOR THE CURRENT
CITATION 42755.
8) The Second Report was opened 10/01/2025.
9) The Second Report: Closed Date: There is no Closed Date.
10) The Code Case Activity Report for this period is detailed. The
relevant details follow:
a. On 10/02/2025, John Mezzapesa opened an Inspection
related to Activity Name 9/26/2025. The comment is that
the investigation was into a RUSH event advertised on
social media associated with the fraternity Delta Upsilon
to occur on 9/26/25. After inspection of all known
locations associated with this advertising fraternity, it was
determined that the event occurred at 388 Chaplin. There
is no use permit for this location to operate as a fraternity.
Inspection was completed on 9/26/2025 at 2:10 pm by
Code Enforcement staff. During inspection several
individuals were observed in the front yard area. During
RUSH events, fraternity members are known to be near
the entrance of a property to check-in and/or greet
prospective recruits. Additionally, during the event, several
individuals, many wearing name tags, were observed
entering the property. Name tags are known to be utilized
by prospective recruits while attending advertised RUSH
events. Given an event was advertised from 12-3 pm on
9/26/25, and that the property has been previously
identified to be used as a fraternity and the typical RUSH
set up/use of name tags indicative of a RUSH event was
observed, it was determined that the property was more
likely than not being used as a fraternity. It also mentions
the first administrative citation was issued 12/23/2025.
b. On February 10, 2026, John Mezzapesa, conducted
research with respect to Activity Name 2/6/2026. This
research found that an event was advertised on Doorlist to
take place on 2/6/2026. The social media was posted by
Delta Upsilon and included an address for the event (388
Chaplin). Given this advertisement and that the property
has been previously identified to be used as a fraternity, it
was determined that the property was more likely than not
being used as a fraternity. Thus, on 3/12/2026, Rami Salem
generated a Second Citation mailed as required to the
property, the current residents, and posted a hard copy on
the property.
c. John Mezzapesa also conducted research on Activity
Name 2/21/2026, finding that an event was advertised on
Doorlist to take place on 2/21/2026, posted by Delta
Upsilon and gave a location for the event (388 Chaplin).
Given that social media posts showed an event occurring
at the residence and that the property has been previously
identified to be used as a fraternity, it was determined that
the property was more likely than not being used as a
fraternity, and the violation was addressed via issuance of
a fine citation #42755. [This was the Third Citation
referenced in the Code Case Activity Report.]
11) The CDD included in the Administrative Record photocopies of
photographs taken of the advertisement on 2/21/2026 by Delta
Upsilon for an event titled “Boiler Room” at 388 Chaplin. There is
no photographic evidence of the CDD driving by the location to
directly observe this activity. Nonetheless, the location has been
previously been identified as more likely than not operating as a
fraternity. Moreover, the CDD has provided direct and
photographic evidence to support a conclusion of unpermitted
fraternity activity going back to months during 2025. Specifically,
the CDD did provide photographic evidence for a drive-by
observation of unpermitted fraternity activity by Delta Upsilon for
an event titled “Meet the Dudes” occurring on 9/26/25. It is true
that this date is not included on the most recent Notice of
Violation, but it could have been—it occurred about 12 months
after the closing of the First Citation. Last, but not least, the CDD
did include photocopies of photographed advertisements by Delta
Epsilon for a event titled “Risky Business” to occur between 8-12
pm at 388 Chaplin. This is evidence of prohibited fraternity
activity, regardless of the date it occurred, and is such even in the
absence of direct observation of the prohibited activity. ALL OF
THIS EVIDENCE IS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
AND IT ALL CORRELATES WITH THE CDD’s
INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH COMMENTS
REGARDING THE FRATERNITY ACTIVITY OCCURRING
AT 388 CHAPLIN.
12) CDD also provided SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS:
1) INFORMATION SHEET (Administrative Citation Appeal
Hearing (Unpermitted Fraternities/Sororities)—its purpose is to help
clarify the evidentiary and legal basis for determining that the subject
property was being used as a fraternity, as defined by the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC), and therefore constitutes a
prohibited or unpermitted land use in the applicable zoning area. It
also makes reference to relevant provisions of the California
Education Code for the purpose of interpreting the occurrence of
“meetings” or “gatherings.”
2) SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION—ADDENDUM (Use of
Event Management Applications (e.g. “DoorList”) as Evidence—its
purpose is to clarify the evidentiary relevance of event management
applications…in evaluating whether a property is being used as a
fraternity or sorority as defined by the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code (SLOMC). It is intended to support administrative record and
provide additional context for evaluating documented evidence.
8. APPELLANT’S WRITTEN REASON FOR APPEAL [QUOTED BELOW]:
“I would like to note that the citation provides only a conclusory
statement of unpermitted use” without identifying any specific
conduct, activity, or factual basis demonstrating that a prohibited use
occurred on the date listed. The City has not provided evidence
describing what activity allegedly took place, whether the evidence is
conclusive, or how it was observed.
“Also, the property in question is residential in nature. The Municipal
Code permits residential occupancy and incidental social use, and the
citations do not establish that any activity exceeded what is ordinarily
allowed in a residential setting.
“To the extent the City relies on online event listings or promotional
materials, such materials do not establish that any event actually
occurred at the cited location on the specified date. Events are
frequently modified, relocated, or cancelled, and listings do not reflect
actual on-site activity. The City must demonstrate what occurred at
each property on each cited date and how such activity constituted a
prohibited land use, which has not been shown.
“Consequently, the order to ‘cease the activity’ is vague and fails to
provide clear guidance as to what conduct is prohibited, making
compliance difficult. In light of this information, I respectfully request
that the citation be overturned.
9. HEARING OFFICER ANALYSIS AND DECISION
I have thoroughly reviewed the ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD. My review considered
the appellant’s written appeal in light of the Notice of Violation(s), the CDD’s Code
Case Activity Reports, photographic evidence of online advertising of events at 388
Chaplin by Delta Upsilon, a Cal Poly fraternity, and all the provisions associated with
the CDD’s SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SHEET and ADDENDUM. I am of the
opinion that the City has met a prima facie standard of violation above and beyond mere
conclusory statements and met their burden to prove with a preponderance of the
evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
1. I uphold 2nd citation with given citation date of February 6, 2026, and
fine of $500. Payment is due.
2. I uphold 3rd citation which has given date on citation of February 21,
2026 and uphold the fine of $1000. Payment is due.
Signed: Hearing Officer, Sharon G. Whitney, 5/9/2026.
PROOF OF SERVICE
- 1 -
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
I am employed in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. I am over the age of
18, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California 93401.
On May 18, 2026, I caused the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DECISION to be served on the interested parties in this action
by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes, addressed as follows:
Henry Brown
Email:
[X] By United States Mail: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope addressed as
indicated above. I am readily familiar with the office’s practice of collection and
processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same
day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served,
service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
than one day after the date of service.
[X] By Certified United States Mail: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope
addressed as indicated above. I completed and attached to the envelope the additional form
required for this type of delivery. I am readily familiar with the office’s practice of
collection and processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal
service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of
the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter
date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
[X] Courtesy Copy by E-mail: I caused this document to be transmitted via e-mail to the e-
mail address listed above.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 18, 2026, at San Luis Obispo, California.
_____________________________
Amel Belghoul
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
X D Agent
D Addressee
B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery
1. Art icle Addressed to:
Henry Brown
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? D Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: D No
3. Service Type
111 IIIIII IIII Ill I IIIIIII I I II 111111111111111 Ill g ~~~i!~~;~: Resmcted Delivery
9590 9402 8995 4122 4129 04 D Certified Mail Restricted Delivery -------------------1 □ Collect on Delivery :>. Article Number (Transfer from service /abeQ □ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery □ Insured Mail
7019 2280 0000 9423 4003 :f;1ijilRestrictedDelivery
PS Form 3811, July 2020 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
•
□ Priority Mail Express® □ Registered Mail™ □ Registered Mail Restricted Delivery □ Signature Confirmation™ □ Signature Confirmation
Restricted Delivery
Domestic Return Receipt
rn rn
□ □
Cl □ .::r- .::r-
rn rn ru ru .::r- .::r-
er er
□ Cl
□ □ □ □ □ □
□ □
cQ cQ ru ru ru ru
er er
.-'I .-'I
□ □ I"'-- I"'--
.. U.S. Postal Service™
CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT .
Domestic Mail Only
e1•1 ~ . . ··~·-· -, . . 0 F F I C I A L u s E
Certified Mail Fee
$
Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee as approprlare) D Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ D Return Receipt (electronic) $ Postmark D Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ Here D Adult Signature Required $ D Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $
Postage
$
Total Posta1
$ Henry Brown - Sent To
City.State,; ...... - ..........
PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 SeeR
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
A. Signature
X □ Agent
D Addressee
B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery
1 . Article Addressed to:
I
H~fY Brown-
- I
D. Is delivery .address different from item 1? □ Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: D No
II lllllll llll 111111111111111111111111111111 Ill i ~l~I!I~~~ Re~ricted Delivery
9590 9402 8995 4122 4129 04 D Certified Mail Re~ricted Delivery ___________________ _,□ Collect on Delivery
· · ·· D Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery
D Insured Mail 4 D D 3 - :/;1t Restricted Delivery
2. Article Number _(Transter tram ~erv1ce JabeQ
7019 228□ □□□□ 9423
D Priority Mail Express®
D Registered Mail™
D Registered Mail Restricted Delivery
D Signature Confirmation™
D Signature Confirmation
Restricted Delivery
PS Form3811, July 2020 PSN 7530-02-!)00-9053 Domestic Return Receipt
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Saturday, May 16, 2026 9:05 PM
To:Marx, Jan; E-mail Council Website; Francis, Emily; Stewart, Erica A; Boswell, Mike;
Shoresman, Michelle; Advisory Bodies
Subject:AEPi Appeal at Council - May 19,2026
Attachments:AEPi Council Appeal 5-19-2026.pdf
CC. Planning Commission
Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council,
I've attached a letter regarding the upcoming appeal by Alpha Epsilon Pi on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, which
includes a video link to relevant statements made by fraternity members during the first re-review of the
Planning Commission 18 months ago on November 13, 2024. The statements made during that hearing
pertain to the overall situation, including the current appeal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kathie Walker
1
Dear Mayor Stewart and Members of the City Council:
I am writing regarding the appeal filed by Alpha Epsilon Pi (AEPi) asking that you uphold the Planning
Commission’s unanimous 7-0 decision to revoke its Conditional Use Permit for fraternity operations at
280 California Boulevard. The staff report accurately summarizes the three noise citations that triggered
mandatory re-review, but it does not present the full scope of documented violations and warning provided
to the fraternity members.
AEPi’s appeal makes several arguments, which are rebutted by the City, but I want to add some additional
context. R-4 zoning applies to higher density living, such as apartments. There are generally more people
in a concentrated area, so noise and other issues potentially impact more people. For example, when Delta
Upsilon’s CUP was reviewed by the Planning Commission, a property manager who represented 29
tenants, including Cal Poly students, said that her tenants complained on nearly a daily basis because of
the noise and disruptions from the nearby fraternity house. Because of the higher density, more people at
adjacent properties are impacted. An R-4 zone is still a residential zone meant for everyday living and is
not an appropriate place to operate as an event venue for fraternity parties.
The appeal suggests that revocation could push fraternity operations into neighborhoods where fraternities
are not permitted. AEPi’s fraternity operations already extend beyond the property with the CUP. The
adjacent property at 331 Hathway Avenue in an R-2 zone is illegally operating as a fraternity house
associated with AEPi. It was listed on the AB 524 report as a fraternity during the 2022-2023 academic
year and has continued to operate as a fraternity, holding fraternity event s there including during this
academic year. Code Enforcement has issued a Notice to the property owner and tenants , and SLOPD
issued a noise citation there in May 2025 for a party involving more than 100 people. The existence or
potential expansion of illegal fraternity operations in surrounding neighborhoods is not a reason to decline
to enforce its zoning regulations and conditions related to the CUP at 280 California Blvd.
Fraternity use in a residential neighborhood is not allowed “by right.” It is a land use category under the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code that requires a Conditional Use Permit with conditions that impose
limitations because, as courts have recognized for decades, fraternity use carries characteristics that can
be incompatible with residential neighborhoods.
The United States Supreme Court addressed this in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974),
where the Justice wrote: “fraternity houses, and the like present urban problems. More people occupy a
given space; more cars rather continuously pass by; more cars are parked; noise travels with crowds.” The
Court rejected the plaintiffs’ First Amendment/associational challenge and held that no fundamental
associational right was implicated by a zoning ordinance that excludes fraternity use.
The California Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion in City of Long Beach v. California Lambda
Chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity, 255 Cal. App. 2d 789 (1967), rejecting the argument that
because fraternity members live on the premises, their use is purely residential. The court ruled, “The
living on the premises is not the test.” The court went further, recognizing the unique impacts of a
fraternity versus an apartment or boarding house, stating that “college spirit contemplates frequent
gatherings with attendant boisterous conduct on occasions” and that “the rush parties, the dances, the
rallies and other manifestations of the collegiate spirit are present in a fraternity house and frequently
absent in a boarding house, a lodging house or an apartment.”
2
The CUP process exists so the City can evaluate whether a specific use at a specific location can be made
compatible through conditions. When the required findings can no longer be supported, the permit must
be revoked. AEPi was sent a Notice with a warning in July 2025, after its second noise citation that three
violations within any twelve-month rolling period would result in re-review. It received its third citation
in October 2025, three months after its final warning, and only six months after its previous two citations.
City records show that AEPi fraternity members also received an earlier warning in May 2025 for a 65-
person event but instead of counting that violation against the CUP, Code Enforcement resolved the matter
on site, and the fraternity was given another chance with a warning that its CUP was in jeopardy.
May 23, 2025: Occupancy Violation at the Car Wash Event. Code Enforcement records document a car
wash event at 280 California Boulevard on May 23, 2025, with approximately 50 to 65 people, exceeding
the 25-person limit under Condition 4. A Code Enforcement officer responded and spoke with fraternity
members, explaining that the event violated the CUP and that a citation would put it at risk. The Risk
Manager for the fraternity, Eliran Solomon, stated he was unaware that exceeding 25 people could
jeopardize the CUP.
That statement is difficult to reconcile against the fact that the fraternity told the Planning Commission
approximately five months earlier, in November 2024, that they could stay within the 25-person limitation
for gatherings. Commissioners asked if 280 California Blvd was large enough to accommodate the
fraternity in light of the events they seemed to want to host, and AEPi said it was “absolutely” large
enough. The commissioners also issued stern warnings to the AEPi members to strictly abide by the
conditions of the CUP and said if the fraternity received a single noise citation, they would be back before
the Planning Commission and would likely lose their CUP. Excerpts from the November 2024 Planning
Commission hearing, including those statements are here: https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/1192927416
On May 23, 2025, Code Enforcement made clear that any event exceeding 25 people was a CUP violation
and would trigger re-review, because there were already two violations of the CUP conditions on file.
Even presuming there was a misunderstanding beforehand, at that point, the fraternity members
understood the 25-person limitation for gatherings on site.
Four days later, on May 27, 2025, AEPi held a “White Lies” party with Sigma Kappa sorority at 280
California Blvd. It is not realistic to believe that the party with the sorority was limited to 25 fraternity
and sorority combined members.
City records also show a code case was opened for property maintenance standards. Code Enforcement
issued a violation in December 2025 for overflowing trash, debris, furniture, tarps, and other items
accumulating at the property and visible from the public right-of-way, in violation of Condition 7, which
requires the property to be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. A code case was opened December
12 and closed December 23, 2025. This violation occurred in the period between the third noise citation
in October 2025 and the notice of re-review on January 29, 2026.
The most significant evidence before this Council is the Cal Poly FSL event registration record for AEPi
at 280 California Blvd. Cal Poly requires all fraternity events to be submitted through its FSL office for
approval. After events, fraternities submit post-event attendance data to Cal Poly taken from the DoorList
app, which is an app used by fraternities and sororities to post events and track guest lists at events.
3
During the Planning Commission’s hearing on November 13, 2024, AEPi said that they had not hosted
any parties through Cal Poly’s registration during that academic year, and the Commission asked if they
had any events planned, which they did give a straightforward answer. AEPi’s records show that on
November 12, the day before the hearing, they registered a Christmas party scheduled for three days after
that hearing on November 16, followed by two more parties within less than a week at 280 California
Blvd:
November 16, 2024 Christmas Party
November 20, 2024 Holiday Themed sorority exchange
November 21, 2024 “Brat and Frat” sorority exchange
It is not reasonable to believe that these events, including an open party and two sorority exchanges, had
25 or less people, especially considering that AEPi has about 100 members, sororities also have an equal
number of members, plus AEPi’s registered event forms customarily listed an attendance of 100 – 160
people.
AEPi’s records document another 21 events in 2025, and 7 additional events in 2026 through April 1, that
listed attendance of 100 – 160 people. The events for which attendance was recorded exceeded the 25-
person CUP limit, in most cases by a factor of four to more than six times. The three events that produced
police citations were not exceptional. They were representative of a routine pattern of large fraternity
parties that happened to generate noise citations on those nights.
There are other factors associated with large fraternity parties, such as traffic and roaming crowds that
walk through the neighborhoods after the parties. Also, SLOPD is not always called when noisy parties
occur. There were many times when AEPi had parties that I walked down to the fraternity late at night to
speak with them, ask for them to quiet down, and did not call SLOPD. Yet I was still disturbed by the
noise, had to get out of bed, get dressed, and walk down to find the source of the party noise. On one
occasion, I texted the person listed on AEPi’s Instagram account as the recruitment chair to ask him to
turn down the music and did not call SLOPD. Complaints to SLOPD are not an accurate indicator of the
disruption felt by the neighbors.
AEPi received its modified CUP in November 2024 following prior violations. Within months of that
modification, the fraternity was hosting events with 65, 160, 160, 160, and 160 attendees before the first
noise citation was issued under the new CUP. The twelve sorority exchange events for which no
attendance count was shown are not included in the table below, though it is reasonable to conclude that
each involved more than 25 combined fraternity and sorority members.
Date Event Attendance CUP Limit Multiplier
2/1/2025 Rhyme Without Reason 65 25 2.6x
2/8/2025 Jungle Party 160 25 6.4x
2/14/2025 Valentine Party 160 25 6.4x
2/16/2025 Boiler Room DJ Party 160 25 6.4x
2/22/2025 Neon Space Party 160 25 6.4x
4/16/2025 SLOPD Citation #1 ~150 cited 25 6x
4/18/2025 SLOPD Citation #2 /
Euphoria Party
160 registered / ~100
cited 25 6.4x
4
4/19/2025 Bikini Bottom Party 160 25 6.4x
5/2025 Car Wash Event (Code Violation) 50–65 25 2–2.6x
10/11/2025 Rhyme Without Reason 80 25 3.2x
10/29/2025 SLOPD Citation #3 ~100 cited 25 4x
11/15/2025 Christmas Party 160 25 6.4x
1/16/2026 Winter Rush Event 1 100 25 4x
1/17/2026 Winter Rush Event 2 100 25 4x
1/18/2026 Winter Rush Event 3 100 25 4x
2/14/2026 Valentine Party 150 25 6x
2/21/2026 Jewpiter Space Rave 100 registered /
375 per DoorList 25 4x–15x
2/27/2026 Rave with Delta Gamma 160 25 6.4x
2/28/2026 Jewmanji Jungle Party 100 25 4x
Conduct After Formal Notice of Re-Review
On January 29, 2026, City staff notified AEPi fraternity members and the property owner that the CUP
would be referred to the Planning Commission for re-review. In the thirty days following that notice, AEPi
hosted at least four events with documented expected attendance of 100 - 160 people.
The February 27 event with Delta Gamma sorority, showing 160 expected attendees, was confirmed by
text with AEPi’s president on February 24 in the comment section of the event registration records. The
February 21 Jewpiter Space Rave event was visible on DoorList and the number of guests and guest list
was also visible. The day of the event, the post showed 375 people planned to attend. A screenshot of the
DoorList post of the event below.
Cal Poly produced the event registration records for the 7 events in 2026 within 10 days, and subsequently,
about one month ago, the post-event reports were requested to confirm the actual number of guests at each
of the 7 events in 2026. Cal Poly claimed those post-event attendance records would take approximately
three months, meaning the records would not be available before this hearing.
5
AEPi’s decision to continue hosting large-scale events after receiving formal notice of re-review is
relevant to the Planning Commission’s finding that no set of conditions could reasonably secure
compatibility with the residential neighborhood. This reflected an ongoing decision by the fraternity to
continue hosting large-scale events despite the conditions of the CUP and formal notice of re-review.
AEPi’s appeal to the Planning Commission also invoked its identity as a Jewish fraternity and describes
Passover Seders, Havdalah gatherings as activities that would be threatened by revocation. The Council
should be clear about what this revocation does and does not affect.
Revoking the CUP does not prevent AEPi’s members from living at 280 California Boulevard. They are
still allowed to hold a Passover Seder, a Havdalah ceremony, or any other religious or cultural observance
in their home. They can still be fraternity members and live in their home. They just can’t operate as a
fraternity at that location. Fraternity members told the Planning Commission that they hold their chapter
meetings on Cal Poly’s campus in a space that accommodates the 100 or so members. There is a suitable
location for their chapter meetings on campus.
The citations that caused this revocation were generated by large, loud, late-night fraternity parties with
100 to 150 attendees. The fraternity’s FSL records show event after event with 65 to 160 expected guests,
shortly after the Planning Commission’s first hearing in November 2024, continuing through 2025 and
even after notification in January 2026 that the fraternity would have a second re-review by the Planning
Commission.
The February 21 party was publicly advertised as a rave on DoorList and showed 375 people indicating
they planned to attend. There is a difference between a religious gathering within a residence and recurring
fraternity parties involving loud music and 100 to 160 attendees or more entering and leaving the property
late at night through surrounding residential neighborhoods. The issue before the Council is not religious
observance, but rather, is whether repeated fraternity events at this property violated the terms of the CUP,
which they did on an ongoing basis.
The Planning Commission revoked the permit on a well-documented record after giving AEPi a second
chance in November 2024, which was followed within days by additional fraternity parties and sorority
exchanges that are difficult to reconcile with a 25-person gathering limitation. The record, including the
additional code violations, the FSL event registration data showing systematic and routine disregard of
the 25-person limit, and AEPi’s continuing parties of 100-160 people after receiving formal notice of re-
review, confirms that the Planning Commission’s findings were correct. The record supports the Planning
Commission’s conclusion that no set of conditions would reasonably allow this fraternity use to operate
compatibly at this location within the residential neighborhood.
The Planning Commission made a unanimous 7-0 finding for revocation. I respectfully ask this Council
to uphold the Planning Commission’s findings.
Sincerely,
Kathie Walker
1
From:SLO <noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Friday, May 15, 2026 1:38 AM
To:Salem, Rami
Subject:Ask SLO Request #: 16546 Due Today
Request # 16546 from the Government Outreach System is due today.
Request type: Problem
Request area: Land Use Violation
Reported by:
Description: Illegal fraternity event held at 1218 Bond (zoned R -1) on 1/15/2026. Posted on
Cal Poly Now at this link: https://now.calpoly.edu/event/12031248 and also
posted on DoorList. This property has been already determined to be operating
unlawfully as a fraternity, therefore the use has been established and has not
ceased or been abated. (It does not take an admission to verify the unlawful
fraternity event.)
Expected Close Date: 05/15/2026
Click here to access the request
1
From:SLO <noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Friday, May 15, 2026 1:38 AM
To:Salem, Rami
Subject:Ask SLO Request #: 16540 Due Today
Request # 16540 from the Government Outreach System is due today.
Request type: Problem
Request area: Land Use Violation
Reported by:
Description: Illegal Land Use, Continued fraternity use at property already documented to be
operating unlawfully as a fraternity in an R-1 zone. Fraternity party "Alpha Sigma
Phi Biza" held on Saturday, May 9 at 1218 Bond Street. Event listed on DoorList.
Date and address confirmed on post, shown.
Expected Close Date: 05/15/2026
Click here to access the request
1
From:SLO <noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 14, 2026 1:46 AM
To:Salem, Rami
Subject:Ask SLO Request #: 16540 is due tomorrow
Request # 16540 from the Government Outreach System is due tomorrow.
Request type: Problem
Request area: Land Use Violation
Reported by:
Description: Illegal Land Use, Continued fraternity use at property already documented to be
operating unlawfully as a fraternity in an R-1 zone. Fraternity party "Alpha Sigma
Phi Biza" held on Saturday, May 9 at 1218 Bond Street. Event listed on DoorList.
Date and address confirmed on post, shown.
Expected Close Date: 05/15/2026
Click here to access the request
1
From:SLO <noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 14, 2026 1:46 AM
To:Salem, Rami
Subject:Ask SLO Request #: 16546 is due tomorrow
Request # 16546 from the Government Outreach System is due tomorrow.
Request type: Problem
Request area: Land Use Violation
Reported by:
Description: Illegal fraternity event held at 1218 Bond (zoned R -1) on 1/15/2026. Posted on
Cal Poly Now at this link: https://now.calpoly.edu/event/12031248 and also
posted on DoorList. This property has been already determined to be operating
unlawfully as a fraternity, therefore the use has been established and has not
ceased or been abated. (It does not take an admission to verify the unlawful
fraternity event.)
Expected Close Date: 05/15/2026
Click here to access the request
1
From:SLO <sanluisobispoca+noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 14, 2026 11:43 AM
To:Salem, Rami
Subject:A Citizen Filled Out a Survey for Request #: 15474
To help protect your
privacy, Microsoft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
SLO
A Citizen Filled Out a Survey for
Request #15474
Comments
The evidence included party registration forms approved by Cal Poly that indicated 100 people were
at the event. The City downloaded the forms and included them in an appeal, therefore had the
information referenced. It is tiresome to have code cases repeatedly dismissed when substantial
evidence proves the violation exists. Do better.
Employee Courtesy No answer
Employee Effectiveness 1, Poor
Expectations Met 1, Below
Time to Respond No answer
Use Permit Violations
Request #15474
Created on Feb 23, 2026 at 8:51 PM
Estimated Resolution by Feb 26, 2026
2
Status Closed
+ 1 additional attachment
Problem Location:
280 California Boulevard
Description
Address: 280 California Blvd
Date of event: 2/21/2026
Nature of violation: CUP violation, exceeding 25 persons
Prior history at this location: Multiple events in 2025 registered with Cal Poly as 160 people,
request info from Cal Poly because this event was likely the same.
Evidence: DoorList posting
Request: Investigate complaint. Contact Cal Poly and request registration form for this event
with names and person info redacted but the number of guests not redacted.
Reason Closed
3
Unable to confirm event or number of individuals who attended the event. Unable to verify.
View Request
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the
Internet.
GOGov Logo
1
From:SLO <sanluisobispoca+noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 14, 2026 11:44 AM
To:Salem, Rami
Subject:A Citizen Filled Out a Survey for Request #: 15476
To help protect your
privacy, Microsoft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
SLO
A Citizen Filled Out a Survey for
Request #15476
Employee Courtesy No answer
Employee Effectiveness 1, Poor
Expectations Met 1, Below
Time to Respond 1, Poor
Land Use Violation
Request #15476
Created on Feb 23, 2026 at 9:14 PM
Estimated Resolution by Feb 26, 2026
Status Closed
2
+ 1 additional attachment
Problem Location:
244 California Boulevard
Description
Address: 244 California Blvd
Date of event: 2/21/2026
Nature of violation: Illegal fraternity use in R-4 zone, no CUP
Evidence: DoorList posting
Reason Closed
I am unable to speak with any of the tenants. I am unable to verify the event took place.
View Request
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the
Internet.
GOGov Logo
3
1
From:SLO <sanluisobispoca+noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 14, 2026 11:44 AM
To:Salem, Rami
Subject:A Citizen Filled Out a Survey for Request #: 15570
To help protect your
privacy, Microsoft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
SLO
A Citizen Filled Out a Survey for
Request #15570
Employee Courtesy No answer
Employee Effectiveness 1, Poor
Expectations Met 1, Below
Time to Respond 1, Poor
Land Use Violation
Request #15570
Created on Mar 2, 2026 at 6:52 PM
Estimated Resolution by Mar 5, 2026
Status Closed
2
+ 1 additional attachment
Problem Location:
334 Foothill Boulevard
Description
Address: 334 E. Foothill Blvd
Date of event: Saturday, 2/28/2026
Nature of violation: Illegal fraternity use in R-1 zone; repeat offender
Prior history at this location: 334 E. Foothill is a documented fraternity house for Theta Chi.
(See Theta Chi-Tanic event on 2/6/2026 which had event address listed on DoorList post and
noise complaint history for this address.)
Evidence: DoorList posting; amplified music; citation from SLOPD for noise violation
Request: Please open a Code Enforcement case and investigate for zoning violation.
Reason Closed
Spoke with the tenant and he denied any fraternity events happening at this property. I am
unable to verify.
View Request
3
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.GOGov Logo
1
From:SLO <sanluisobispoca+noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 8:01 AM
To:Salem, Rami
Subject:Land Use Violation Request #: 16546 Assigned to Rami Salem
To help protect your
privacy, Microsoft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
SLO
Request #16546 Assigned to Rami
Salem
Land Use Violation
Request #16546
Created on May 12, 2026 at 2:45 PM
Estimated Resolution by May 15, 2026
Status Assigned
Assignee Rami Salem
2
+ 1 additional attachment
Requester Name
Problem Location:
1218 Bond Street
Description
Illegal fraternity event held at 1218 Bond (zoned R-1) on 1/15/2026. Posted on Cal Poly Now at
this link: https://now.calpoly.edu/event/12031248 and also posted on DoorList. This property
has been already determined to be operating unlawfully as a fraternity, therefore the use has
been established and has not ceased or been abated. (It does not take an admission to verify
the unlawful fraternity event.)
View Request
3
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
GOGov Logo
1
From:SLO <sanluisobispoca+noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 8:03 AM
To:Salem, Rami
Subject:Land Use Violation Request #: 16540 Assigned to Rami Salem
To help protect your
privacy, Microsoft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
SLO
Request #16540 Assigned to Rami
Salem
Land Use Violation
Request #16540
Created on May 12, 2026 at 2:13 PM
Estimated Resolution by May 15, 2026
Status Assigned
Assignee Rami Salem
2
Requester Name
Problem Location:
1218 Bond Street
Description
Illegal Land Use, Continued fraternity use at property already documented to be operating
unlawfully as a fraternity in an R-1 zone. Fraternity party "Alpha Sigma Phi Biza" held on
Saturday, May 9 at 1218 Bond Street. Event listed on DoorList. Date and address confirmed on
post, shown.
View Request
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the
Internet.
GOGov Logo
1
From:SLO <sanluisobispoca+noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2026 8:02 AM
To:Salem, Rami
Subject:Land Use Violation Request #: 16543 Assigned to Rami Salem
To help protect your
privacy, Microsoft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
SLO
Request #16543 Assigned to Rami
Salem
Land Use Violation
Request #16543
Created on May 12, 2026 at 2:31 PM
Estimated Resolution by May 15, 2026
Status Assigned
Assignee Rami Salem
2
+ 1 additional attachment
Requester Name
Problem Location:
290 Craig Way
Description
Onoing unlawful fraternity events at 290 Craig Way, zoned R-1, "Keith's House" where Sigma
Phi Epsilon members live and hold fraternity events. The event on May 14, 2026 can be found
on Cal Poly Now at this link: https://now.calpoly.edu/event/12244772
View Request
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the
Internet.
GOGov Logo
1
From:SLO <noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 2:14 PM
To:Mezzapesa, John; Buckley, Nick; Green, Harriet; Salem, Rami
Subject:Ask SLO Notification of new Land Use Violation Request #16540
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Request # 16540 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Code Enforcement.
Request type: Problem
Request area: Land Use Violation
Citizen name:
Description: Illegal Land Use, Continued fraternity use at property already documented to be
operating unlawfully as a fraternity in an R-1 zone. Fraternity party "Alpha Sigma
Phi Biza" held on Saturday, May 9 at 1218 Bond Street. Event listed on DoorList.
Date and address confirmed on post, shown.
Location: 1218 Bond Street
Expected Close Date: May 15, 2026
Click here to access the request
Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are
not monitored and will be ignored.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
1
From:SLO <noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 2:46 PM
To:Mezzapesa, John; Buckley, Nick; Green, Harriet; Salem, Rami
Subject:Ask SLO Notification of new Land Use Violation Request #16546
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Request # 16546 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Code Enforcement.
Request type: Problem
Request area: Land Use Violation
Citizen name:
Description: Illegal fraternity event held at 1218 Bond (zoned R -1) on 1/15/2026. Posted on
Cal Poly Now at this link: https://now.calpoly.edu/event/12031248 and also
posted on DoorList. This property has been already determined to be operating
unlawfully as a fraternity, therefore the use has been established and has not
ceased or been abated. (It does not take an admission to verify the unlawful
fraternity event.)
Location: 1218 Bond Street
Expected Close Date: May 15, 2026
Click here to access the request
Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are
not monitored and will be ignored.
To help protect your
privacy,
Microsoft
Office
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
City of San Luis Obispo, City Atto rney’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.78 1.7140, slocity.org
May 12, 2026
Russell Hutchinson
385 Albert Dr
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Via First Class and Certified Mail
Email:
Re: NOTICE OF DECISION
Appeal of Administrative Citation #42617- CITATION UPHELD
To Russell Hutchinson:
On or after April 29, 2026, Hearing Officer Sharon Whitney reviewed your administrative citation
appeal, considered the evidence, and made the determination indicated above.
Hearing Officer Whitney’s findings are attached.
Pursuant to Government Code section 53069.4, you may seek judicial review of this decision by
filing a further appeal with the San Luis Obispo Superior Court within twenty calendar days after
service of this notice of decision and paying the filing fee as required by Government Code section
70615 to the San Luis Obispo Superior Court. If you file an appeal pursuant to Government Code
section 53069.4(b)(1), you must serve either in person or via first-class mail on the City a copy of the
notice of appeal. If no appeal is filed with the San Luis Obispo Superior Court within the time
period set forth above, this notice of decision shall be deemed final.
Unless you file an appeal with the San Luis Superior Court, your fine amount of $2,600 is due
to be paid no later than Thirty (30) days from the date of this letter. If paying by check, make
the check or money order out to “City of San Luis Obispo” and m ail to: Finance Department,
990 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. You may also call in a debit/credit card payment to
Finance at (805) 781-7124. Make sure to have the citation number ready when you call. If the
fine remains unpaid after thirty days, the matter will be turned over to the City’s collection agency.
Sincerely,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant
City Attorney’s Office
Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision
ION ON ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION APPEAL
City of San Luis Obispo, California
In the Matter of Russell Hutchinson, Property Owner
1. Citation number: 42617
2. Location of cited violation: 385 Albert Drive, San Luis Obispo, California
3. Date of cited violation: 30 January 2026
4. Name and address of person cited: Russell Hutchinson, 385 Albert Drive, San
Luis Obispo, California.
5. Description of cited violation:
a. SLO City Municipal Code section 17.10.020
b. Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses—Unpermitted Use
c. Fine Assessment: $2,600.
6. Date of Hearing: 29 April 2026.
a. In Person Hearing Waived by RH.
b. Hearing on the Record by Hearing Officer, Sharon G. Whitney
7. CITY’S EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
• “Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation (Courtesy Warning
Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation),” dated 4 December 2025, sent
to the Residents of 385 Albert Drive, San Luis Obispo, and to the Property
Owner,/SLO Family LLC,
for subject address, 385 Albert Drive, San Luis Obispo, California 93405.
Said Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation letter says
in pertinent part the following:
“On September 27, 2025, the 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, 385 Albert Drive, San Luis Obispo, Ca.
1. The subject address has been identified as a fraternity/sorority
located within the R-1 zone. The current use of a
fraternity/sorority requires a use permit within the R-3 & R-4
zones and is not allowed with 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
affiliated and in good standing with the California
Polytechnic State University and where such an
association also holds meetings or gatherings (SLOMC
17.156.014).
After inspection, a fraternity sponsored event was documented
to have occurred on September 26, 2025 [sic, should have said
September 27, 2025]. The subject address has been determined
to meet the definition of a fraternity/sorority and is subject to
the City’s use regulations as cited below.
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, section 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 regulation 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 17.110.030 (Procedure—Minor
Use Permit)
CUP: The use requires a conditional use permit approved by
the planning commission as provided in Section 17.110.040
(Procedure—Conditional Use Permit)
A/M: The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject
to minor use permit view, the use may be established on the
ground floor.
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 you choose to request a Director’s review of this Notice as
described below, please submit a copy of the event registration held
by the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Life showing the location in
which the event was held on the date cited above.
…
“We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s)
immediately. These violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Any
repeated violation of the same code sections cited in this notice will result in the
issuance of Administrative Citation requiring payment of FINES in accordance
with SLOMC Chapter 1.24. ….
“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 93406, 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 any questions, please contact the
undersigned Officer at (805) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
[Signed Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Officer and Safe Housing
Coordinator]
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
• The City’s Evidence in the record also includes: Citation No.: 00042617,
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE. This form has marked 1st
Citation, 2nd Citation, 3rd Citation, Additional/Daily Fines. It includes the
address of the violation as 385 Albert Dr., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405, APN:
052-322-015. and the Date of the Violation 1/30/2026, addressed to
SLO Family LLC,
Said ADMINISTRATION CITATION AND ORDER TO COMPLY
WITH SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE further says in bold
caps the following:
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.24 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL
CODE, YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY CORRECT THE
VIOLATION(S) DESCRIBED BELOW AND PAY THE FINE. YOU ARE FURTHER
ORDERED TO CEASE THE ACTIVITY GIVING RISE TO THEVIOLATION.
WHEN CORRECTIONS ARE COMPLETE PLEASE SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION
BY CALLING (805) 781-7180. TO AVOID ADDITIONAL FINDES COMPLIANCE
MUST BE VERIFIED BY DEPARTMENT. IF DAILY FINES APPLY AS NOTED
ABOVE, THE FINES SHALL ACCRUE DAILY UNTIL THE VIOLATON(S) ARE
CORRECTED. FAILURE TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) WILL RESULT IN
THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS AND
ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
This form lists 4 instances of a single code violation, specifically: MC Section
17.10.020, Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses—Unpermitted Use, with the fines
escalating from $100, $500, $1000, $1000, cumulating at $2,600.
….
Mail Payments to: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, 919
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
“You may file an APPEAL of this Administrative Citation by submitting a request in writing
to the Hearing Administrator within ten days of the date this Administrative Citation is
issued as shown below. Each responsible party is individually required to file an appeal.
FAILURE TO FILE AN APPEAL WILL WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS
CITATION. Please see the attached Appeal Form for more information. Mail Appeals to
City of San Luis Obispo, City Clerk, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
Issued by: R. Salem, signed Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Officer.
The invoice for this citation for the City of San Luis Obispo was dated 2/26/2026, with a
Due Date of 3/28/2026, and the status of the invoice was that it was Due, for $2,600.
• The City’s evidence includes “Code Case Activity Report Code-000295-
2025.” This Report was opened 10/1/2025 and has no closed date. It has
multiple entries, outlined below.
i.John Mezzapesa did an Inspection on 10/01/2025, with reference
to Activity Name 9/27/2025. Comments follow: “Investigation
into RUSH event advertised on social media associated with the
fraternity Theta Chi to occur on 9/27/2025. After inspection of all
known locations used as a fraternity associated the organization
advertising the event, it was determined that the event took place
at 385 Albert. There is no use permit for the location to operate as
a fraternity. Inspection and that the event occurred at 385 Albert.
Inspection was completed at 1:10 P.M. by Code Enforcement
staff. During inspection several individuals were observed in the
front yard area. During RUSH events, fraternity members are
known to be near the entrance of a property to check-in and/or
greet prospective recruits. Additionally, during the event several
individuals, Name tags are known to be utilized by prospective
recruits while attending advertised RUSH events. Given an event
was advertised from 12 PM-3PM on 9/27/2025 and the property
has been previously identified to be used as a fraternity and the
typical RUSH set-up/use of name tags observed, it was
determined that the property was more likely than not being
use[d] as a fraternity.”
ii.The above investigation generated a Notice of Violation on
12/04/2025 issued to the property owner and tenants of the
property, by Rami Salem.
iii. On 2/10/2026, John Mezzapesa conducted research for activity
named 1/30/2026. Said research found that an event was
advertised on Doorlist to take place on 1/30/2026. “The social
media post, posted by Theta Chi, included a location for the
event (385 Albert). Given the social media posts showed an
event occurring at the residence and the property has been
previously identified to be used as a fraternity, it was determined
that the property was more likely than not being use[d] as a
fraternity.”
iv. On 2/26/2026, Rami Salem generated a list of Administrative
Citations. One is unnumbered. Others are named 1st, 2nd, and
3rd. They were mailed by certified mail and first class to the
property owner and posted on the site.
v. On 3/11/2026, John Mezzapesa did some research on Activity
Name 2/23/25. “Research found that the events were advertised
on Doorlist to take place on 10/10/2025, 11/7/25, and 11/14/25.
The social media posts, posted by Theta Chi, included locations
for the event (385 Albert). Given the social media posts showed
an event occurring at the residence and the property has been
previously determined to be used as a fraternity it was
determined that the property was more likely than not being
use[d] as a fraternity.”
• The CDD’s Code Case Activity Report included photocopied photographs of
Cal Poly-Theta Chi events held at 385 Albert on: 10/10, called “Jungle
Party,” occurring,10 PM-12 AM; 11/7, called "Neon Rave,” occurring 8-9
PM; and “PJ Party,” occurring 11/14, 9-11 PM. Also included was a
photocopied photograph of an event occurring 1/30, at 8 PM, called “Club
1820.”
• The Community Development department of San Luis Obispo, CA. provided
“Supplemental Information – Addendum” a document to explain the Use of
Event Management Applications (e.g. “DoorList”) as Evidence. Its purpose is
to clarify the evidentiary relevance of event management applications,
including but not limited to “DoorList” in evaluating whether a property is
being used as a fraternity or sorority, as defined by the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code. Also, the Community Development provided a
“Supplemental Information Sheet, Administrative Citation Appeal Hearing
(Unpermitted Fraternities/Sororities).” Its purpose was to clarify the
evidentiary and legal basis for determining that the subject property was
being used as a fraternity or sorority as defined by city code, and thus
unpermitted in the applicable zoning district.
8. APPELLANT’S EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD (received on 3 March 2026
for Citation issued 20 February 2026) quoted in pertinent part below:
“I am appealing the Administrative Citation No. 00042617 with respect to the
escalation and cumulative application of multiple citation tiers.
“The only communication received prior to the citation was the December 4, 2025
Notice to Correct, which referenced inconsistent dates for an underlying event
(September 26 and September 27, 2025). This created uncertainty regarding the
timeline of enforcement and the basis for any subsequent escalation. [Emphasis
added.]
“No intermediate citations, first-level fines, or additional enforcement
communications were issued between the Notice to Correct and the January 30, 2026
citation. The citation issued on January 30, 2026 includes multiple escalating tiers
(1st, 2nd, 3rd, and additional citation levels) applied simultaneously under the same
code section, without prior issuance of progressive citations corresponding to each
alleged violation.
“Based on the language of the Notice to Correct, it was reasonably understood that
continued violations should result in an administrative citation. It was not understood
that multiple escalating citation levels would be imposed at once without prior notice
or an opportunity to correct following each step of enforcement.[Emphasis added.]
“The tenants have taken steps to ensure compliance, and any fraternity-related
activity at the property has ceased. The tenants, landlord, and families are working
together to prevent future violations.
“While the City’s authority to enforce zoning regulations is acknowledged, the
simultaneous stacking of multiple citation tiers without intermediate enforcement
steps appears inconsistent with the principle of progressive enforcement. The citation
lists escalating fines ($100, $500, $1000 levels) under the same code section and
issued on the same date, without explanation of how each tier was triggered.
[Emphasis added.]
“For these reasons, it is respectfully requested that the higher-tier citation levels be
set aside or otherwise modified to reflect a proportional and procedurally consistent
application of the City’s administrative citation process.” [Emphasis added.]
9. HEARING OFFIER’S ANALYSIS AND DECISION
a. The appellant does not dispute the existence of an unpermitted fraternity
and fraternity activities at 385 Albert on the dates advertised by Theta
Chi.
b. Indeed, the City of San Luis Obispo, CA, Community Development
Department, established with a preponderance of evidence in the record
that a Cal Poly fraternity, Theta Chi, operated at 385 Albert Drive, San
Luis Obispo, California, in an unpermitted residential zone (R1 & R2)
and hosted multiple advertised fraternity events on social media between
27 September 2025 including on 10/10/2025, 11/7/2025, and 11/14/2025.
c. The CDD issued a “Notice to Correct” on 12/4/2025.
d. The CDD provided evidence that another unpermitted event occurred on
30 January 2026.
e. On 2/26/2026, the CDD issued its ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE SAN LUIS MUNICIPAL
CODE, listing the date of the violation as 1/30/2026, the last one detailed
in its Code Case Activity Report. It shows four instances of the code’s
violation, but gives no dates for the violations. Presumably, these four
instances correlate with the dates in the Code Case Activity Report that I
have highlighted above, namely: 10/10, called “Jungle Party,”
occurring,10 PM-12 AM; 11/7, called "Neon Rave,” occurring 8-9 PM;
and “PJ Party,” occurring 11/14, 9-11 PM. Also photocopied photograph
of an event occurring 1/30, at 8 PM, called “Club 1820.”
f. The 12/4/2025, “Notice to Correct,” says corrective action must include
ceasing the use of this property as a fraternity/sorority, warning that any
future verified fraternity events may result in the issuance of fines.
Furthermore, it says the recipients of the Notice must voluntarily correct
immediately, and that repeated violations of the same code will result in
the issuance of an Administrative Citation requiring payment of
FINES in accordance with the SLOMC Chapter 1.24. Furthermore,
the Notice to Correct tells the recipient that the Notice to Correct “shall
be deemed final unless you timely file a Request for Director’s Review.”
Contact information was provided in the Notice to Correct.
g. Because the appellant does not challenge the existence of a fraternity or
fraternity events. As I read the appeal, it is more in the nature of the
Administrative Code Enforcement Procedures. Namely, the appeal
objects to: 1) inconsistency in the dates of the violation (9/26/2025 or
9/27/2025), creating uncertainty regarding the timeline of enforcement
and the basis for any subsequent escalation; 2) the lack of intermediate
citations, first-level fines or additional communications between the
12/4/2025 Notice to Correct and the January 30, 2026 Citation; 3) a lack
of understanding that multiple escalating citation levels would be
imposed at once without prior notice or an opportunity to correct
following each step of enforcement; and 4) steps have been taken to
ensure compliance, with all fraternity activity ceased, and tenants,
landlord, and families working together to prevent future violations.
h. For this procedural basis of the appeal, I refer to Chapter 1.24 of the
SLOMC, generally as to its purpose, and in its assorted sections viz
applicability, definitions, etc.
i. The purpose of the Administrative Code Enforcement Procedure
is “to enable the city, acting as a charter city pursuant to
Article XI, Sections 5 and 7 of the State Constitution, to impose
and collect civil administrative fines in conjunction with the
enforcement of provisions of this code. Notwithstanding the
provisions herein, the city has and shall continue to employ the
philosophy of voluntary compliance when seeking compliance
with this code as may be required by law.
ii. D. Strict Liability of the Owner. Because serious code violations
may impact public health, welfare, and safety and the adequacy
and safety of housing, this chapter is intended to impose strict
civil liability upon the owners of real property (or the owner of a
business where the violation is caused by or relates to the
operation of a business) for all violations of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code which may occur in the city of San Luis Obispo
regardless of the existence of specific or general intent or prior
knowledge of such violations and, further, regardless of any
intent (or lack thereof) to violate the code. (Ord. 1625 § 1,
2015).
iii. 1.24.030 Definitions
A. Administrative Citation. Document issued by the director
levying or assessing a civil fine as set by city council
resolution as a penalty for a code violation.
C. Code Violation. Any violation of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code or any code adopted by reference therein.
E. Director. The city manager or department head, or his or
her designee, responsible for enforcing the municipal code
with respect to his or her department on behalf of the city.
F. Effective Date of Administrative Citation. The date
specified in the administrative citation as the effective date.
Generally the effective date will be the date the administrative
citation is issued.
H. Hearing Officer. The person appointed by the city
attorney, or his or her designee, to serve as the hearing officer
for conducting administrative hearings of appeals of
administrative citations issued for municipal code
violations,….
I. Issued. Giving, mailing, personally serving or posting a
notice to correct, notice of violation and/or an administrative
citation to a person. The notice or administrative citation shall
be deemed issued on the earliest of the date on which the
notice and/or administrative citation is personally served on a
person, the date it is mailed to a person by posting in the
regular United States mail, or the date it is physically posted
on real property where a property related code violation is
occurring. If the property is physically posted, notice shall also
be given by mail as soon as possible.
J. Notice to Correct. A notice of code violation that pertains
to continuing building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar
structural or zoning violations that do not create an immediate
danger to health or safety. The notice to correct usually serves
as a courtesy notice and opportunity to correct or consult with
staff regarding the alleged code violation,….
K. Notice of Violation. A written notice issued to a person(s)
advising them that they are in violation of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code with respect to certain real property or the
operation of a certain business, or individual behavior, which
is served concurrently with an administrative citation
assessing a civil fine as set by city council resolution as a
penalty for a municipal code violation….
L. Section L defines “Person.” It covers anyone who causes a
violation or allows it to continue by action or failure to act in a
lawful manner.
iv. 1.24.040 Maintaining Public Nuisances is Prohibited.
Pursuant to the authority of California Government Code
Section 38771 and Sections 1.12.070 and 1.12.080, any
continuing violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
constitutes a public nuisance. Therefore, any person owning or
having possession of any real property in the city of San Luis
Obispo who is in violation of any provision of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code may be determined to be maintaining
a public nuisance; provided, however, that it shall not be the
intent of the city that this chapter preempt any private
nuisance right of action or any and all other legal remedies
available to private parties to abate such nuisances. (Ord. 1625
§ 1, 2015).
v.1.24.050 Abatement of unlawful conditions--Notice
A. Inspections. Whenever city staff has inspected a property
and finds that conditions constituting a violation of the
municipal code exist thereon, the director may use the
procedures set forth in this chapter to abate such nuisance as
authorized by law.
B. Notice of Violation and Administrative Citation
Issuance. The director may issue a notice of violation, notice to
correct and/or administrative citation for a violation to any
person or persons if the director has determined, through
investigation, a violation exists. A person to whom an
administrative citation is issued shall be liable for and shall pay
to the city the administrative fine or fines described in the
citation when due pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
D. Continuing Violations. Except as provided elsewhere in the
municipal code, each day a violation of this code exists shall be
a separate and distinct violation and may be subject to a separate
administrative fine. … An administrative citation may charge a
violation for one or more days or hours, as applicable, on which
a violation exists and for violation of one or more applicable
code sections.
E. Prior and Repeat Violations. … Repeated violations by the
same person or the same property of the same code provision
within any twelve-month period may result in the issuance of an
administrative citation(s) imposing additional administrative
fines without a notice of violation and/or notice to correct
preceding the citation.
F. Contents of Notice of Violation, Notice to Correct and/or
Administrative Citation. The director shall generally issue a
notice of violation, notice to correct and/or administrative
citation to person(s) responsible for a code violation as set forth
in Section 1.24.030(L). The administrative citation guidelines as
approved by the city council pursuant to Section 1.24.010 shall,
among other things, identify those items of information which
must be contained in the notice of violation and/or
administrative citation issued to persons and alleging a violation
of the municipal code, but must, at a minimum, inform the
responsible person of the nature of the violation charged, any
right to correct the violation, and/or the right to appeal any
citation, as well as the process by which to verify to the city the
correction of violation(s) and/or the process to appeal citations.
vi. 1.24.110. Hearing Process:
“E. Use of Reports as Evidence. The administrative citation
and any documents, exhibits, reports or other materials
prepared by city staff or by the director concerning a code
violation or an attempted correction of a code violation that
are provided to the applicable hearing officer or board shall
be accepted by the hearing officer or board as prima facie
evidence of the code violation and of the facts stated in such
documents.” [Emphasis added.]
vii 1.24.120 Decision by hearing officer.
“A. Decision by Hearing Officer. After considering all the evidence
and testimony submitted at an appeal hearing, the hearing officer shall
issue a written decision within ten business days to either uphold or
revoke the administrative citation based upon a conclusion of whether
the violation occurred. If an administrative citation charges two or
more code violations, the hearing officer may uphold all violations, or
uphold some violations but not all violations, or dismiss some or all
violations. The hearing officer does not have the authority to reduce
or modify a fine for a violation that is upheld on appeal. If a violation
is not upheld, the administrative citation shall be revoked. [Emphasis
added.] The notice of decision shall be mailed by first class and
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the
appellant or their designated representative. The failure by the
appellant to appear at the appeal hearing shall be noted on the notice
of decision by the hearing officer. The decision of the hearing officer
shall be final.”
i. The appellant mentions “Progressive Enforcement” policies. My research
suggests that this generally means, as applicable to municipal codes, that
it starts with education and warnings based on voluntary compliance and
escalates to penalties if violations continue, plus enforcement of officers’
fairness and transparency, and case-by-case assessment (AI assistant,
4/18/2026). I believe the Community Development Department followed
this policy with its Notice to Correct, how to correct, and later likely
steps.
CONCLUSION
In my considered opinion, the City and CDD have followed the proper
Administrative Citation Procedures. As I read all the evidence, consider the
appellant’s appeal, and due process concerns, including “Decision by Hearing
Officer,” it is my opinion that there is but one code violation, namely SLOMC
Section 17.10.020. This one code violation has multiple citations. Thus, I may
either uphold or dismiss the violation. My research suggests that the Community
Development Department did follow consistently “progressive enforcement”
policies. If I believe a violation occurred, as I do, I lack the authority to reduce or
modify a fine for a fine for a violation that I uphold on appeal. Therefore, given that
a violation occurred and that the appellant received fair notice and a timely issuance
of the citation, I uphold the escalated and cumulated fine assessment of $2600.
DECISION: For reasons given above, I deny the appeal and uphold the violation
and its cumulative fine assessment of $2600. The CDD Notice to Correct and
Administrative Citation and Order to Comply provided ample language and highlighting to
support the citation and fine. It also provided ample opportunity for the property owner to
take immediate steps to abate the nuisance.
This decision may be appealed to superior court for de novo review pursuant to
Government Code Section 53069.4
Signed: Hearing Officer, Sharon G. Whitney, 5/5/2026.
PROOF OF SERVICE
- 1 -
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
I am employed in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. I am over the age of
18, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California 93401.
On May 12, 2026, I caused the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DECISION to be served on the interested parties in this action
by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes, addressed as follows:
Russell Hutchinson
385 Albert Dr
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Email:
[X] By United States Mail: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope addressed as
indicated above. I am readily familiar with the office’s practice of collection and
processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same
day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served,
service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
than one day after the date of service.
[X] By Certified United States Mail: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope
addressed as indicated above. I completed and attached to the envelope the additional form
required for this type of delivery. I am readily familiar with the office’s practice of
collection and processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal
service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of
the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter
date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
[X] Courtesy Copy by E-mail: I caused this document to be transmitted via e-mail to the e-
mail address listed above.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 12, 2026, at San Luis Obispo, California.
_____________________________
Amel Belghoul
1
From:SLO <sanluisobispoca+noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 2:46 PM
To:Code Enforcement
Subject:New Land Use Violation Request #: 16546 Assigned to Code Enforcement
To help protect your
privacy, Microsoft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
SLO
New Request #16546 Assigned to
Code Enforcement
Land Use Violation
Request #16546
Created on May 12, 2026 at 2:45 PM
Estimated Resolution by May 15, 2026
Status Open
Assignee Code Enforcement
2
+ 1 additional attachment
Requester Name
Problem Location:
1218 Bond Street
Description
Illegal fraternity event held at 1218 Bond (zoned R-1) on 1/15/2026. Posted on Cal Poly Now at
this link: https://now.calpoly.edu/event/12031248 and also posted on DoorList. This property
has been already determined to be operating unlawfully as a fraternity, therefore the use has
been established and has not ceased or been abated. (It does not take an admission to verify
the unlawful fraternity event.)
View Request
3
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
GOGov Logo
1
From:Mezzapesa, John
Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:05 AM
To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Subject:Re: Request for Clarity of Enforcement Standard and Request to Reopen Code Case #
15570
Our investigation into this matter has been completed. While the submitted materials provide circumstantial
indicators, we did not identify sufficient direct evidence to conclusively establish that a fraternity-sponsored event
occurred at the subject property on the date and time referenced in the DoorList posting.
The advertisement did not identify a specific address, and Theta Chi is associated with nine known locations
where we have identified unpermitted fraternity use. We also did not obtain direct evidence — such as officer
observations identifying a fraternity event, photographs clearly tying the gathering to fraternity activity at the
location, witness statements, admissions from occupants, or other independently verifiable evidence —
establishing that the noise citation issued on 2/28 resulted from a fraternity-sponsored event at this property.
As with several other locations associated with fraternities, this appears to be a dual-use residential property
where occupants may host private social gatherings independent of fraternity activity. Ultimately, the available
evidence was insufficient to clearly distinguish between a fraternity-sponsored event and a gathering among
residents and friends.
If the City were to proceed with enforcement action based on the currently available evidence, and that action
were appealed, we would likely be in the position of having no independently observable evidence establishing
that the noise citation was issued as a result of a fraternity-sponsored event. We would anticipate the appellant
would simply assert that the gathering was not fraternity-related, and based on the current evidentiary record, we
do not believe we would be well-positioned to sustain the enforcement action through the appeal process.
Given the evidentiary limitations identified during the investigation, staff is not inclined to pursue enforcement
action that is unlikely to be upheld and would require a significant expenditure of staff time and City resources
without a reasonable likelihood of success.
John Mezzapesa
Code Enforcement Supervisor
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development
Building and Safety
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668
E jmezzapesa@slocity.org
T 805.781.7179
C
slocity.org
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Of…
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Of…
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Of…
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Of…
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Of…
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
2
From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:19 AM
To: Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org>
Subject: FW: Request for Clarity of Enforcement Standard and Request to Reopen Code Case #15570
Hi,
Is there any context you can/want to add regarding this case that may be helpful?
Thanks!
Timothea (Timmi) Tway
Director of Community Development
Community Development
919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E TTway@slocity.org
T 805.781.7187
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: kathie walker <
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 6:58 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>
Cc: Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org>; Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie
<ssymens@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley <
Subject: Request for Clarity of Enforcement Standard and Request to Reopen Code Case #15570
Timmi and Christine,
I am writing to request that Code Enforcement case #15570 be reopened, and that the City Attorney’s
office provide written clarification of the enforcement standard that applies once a Notice of Violation
has been issued for illegal fraternity use. I am writing to you jointly because the requests are related.
As Director of Community Development, Timmi has authority over the operational enforcement
response, while Christine, as the lead City Attorney, can address the legal question at the center of
this matter. The legal question applies across many properties throughout the City.
On February 5, 2026, I submitted a complaint documenting a Theta Chi fraternity event at 334 E.
Foothill Blvd, the "Theta Chi-Tanic" dayge, advertised on DoorList. (Cal Poly's fraternities have
been trained through FSL to use the DoorList app to track guest lists for their events, and use the
data for post-event reports submitted to Cal Poly.) On February 20, 2026, the City closed that
complaint, noting, "The event has been confirmed, and the appropriate enforcement steps will be
taken." The City subsequently issued a Notice of Violation to the property owner and the fraternity.
That Notice required them to cease all fraternal gatherings, meetings, and activities and established
that 334 E. Foothill Blvd is operating as an illegal fraternity use in a prohibited R-1 residential zone.
3
Theta Chi's fraternity events are held in the shared backyard of properties at 330 & 334 E. Foothill
and 340 E. Foothill. See attachment
On February 28, 2026, Theta Chi held another large gathering at the property, posted on DoorList as
"Theta Chi Biza." Neighboring residents contacted SLOPD about the noise from the fraternity event,
SLOPD officers responded, and a noise citation was issued to Owen Ryan. Mr. Ryan is Theta Chi Cal
Poly’s Risk Manager for 2026, as confirmed by Theta Chi’s Instagram account. The Risk Manager for
each fraternity is usually the person who registers fraternity events for approval to Cal Poly Fraternity
& Sorority Life through its event registration system.
On March 2, 2026, I submitted a code case (case #15570), including the DoorList posting with the
date and time of the fraternity event and the SLOPD citation issued to Owen Ryan. The complaint
referenced the prior NOV and the property’s enforcement history. On May 7, 2026, the case was
closed by Code Enforcement with the following notation: "Spoke with the tenant and he denied any
fraternity events happening at this property. I am unable to verify."
I have two concerns with that closure. The SLOPD citation issued at the property during a Theta Chi
event posted on DoorList for the same date and time, together with the identification of the cited
individual as Theta Chi’s Risk Manager, constitutes substantial evidence relevant to whether the
unlawful fraternity use continued after issuance of the NOV. A tenant’s denial does not negate the
corroborating evidence that a noisy party took place at the same date and time that Theta Chi
advertised its event on DoorList. The determination that the matter was “unable to verify” is not
consistent with either the evidence submitted or the City’s prior enforcement determination regarding
the property’s illegal use as a fraternity.
Administrative enforcement decisions must be supported by substantial evidence and applied in a
consistent and non-arbitrary manner. See Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los
Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515–517 (administrative findings must bridge the analytic gap
between raw evidence and ultimate decision). While the City retains enforcement discretion, prior
verified determinations and subsequent corroborating evidence should materially inform later
enforcement decisions involving the same property, particularly where there is no evidence that the
unlawful use has ceased or been abated.
The second, and broader, question concerns the enforcement standard that applies to complaints
submitted after a Notice of Violation has been issued. Because the City has already made a
determination that the property is operating as an illegal fraternity, subsequent complaints raise a
different and narrower question about whether the unlawful use has ceased or been abated.
Subsequent complaints at the same property should be evaluated against that prior determination of
the illegal use.
The SLOPD citation issued at the property during a Theta Chi event posted on DoorList, together with
the noise citation from SLOPD that cited Owen Ryan, a member of Theta Chi and its Risk Manager,
is substantial evidence that the unlawful fraternity use continued after issuance of the NOV that
established illegal fraternity use at that address.
If the City’s position is instead that each complaint following issuance of an NOV requires a new
determination of whether an unlawful fraternity use exists, irrespective of prior findings and
subsequent corroborating evidence, I would ask that the City Attorney state that position in writing
and clarify the evidentiary and enforcement standard the City applies to subsequent complaints after
a Notice of Violation has already been issued. That interpretation would substantially diminish the
practical enforcement significance of Notices of Violation.
4
The City’s Notices of Violation characterize unlawful fraternity use as a public nuisance requiring
abatement, making the consistency of subsequent enforcement determinations important. This issue
extends beyond a single property because the enforcement standard being applied determines
whether Notices of Violation function as meaningful abatement tools or merely as temporary warnings
without continuing enforcement effect. Because this issue is likely to arise during the May 26 study
session, I would appreciate clarification as soon as possible, before the study session.
Please reopen and investigate case #15570 based on the evidence submitted, take appropriate
enforcement action for continued illegal fraternity use following issuance of the Notice of Violation,
and provide written clarification of the evidentiary and enforcement standard governing complaints
submitted after an NOV has been issued.
Respectfully,
Kathie Walker
1
From:SLO <sanluisobispoca+noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 2:32 PM
To:Mezzapesa, John
Subject:New Land Use Violation Request #: 16543 Assigned to Code Enforcement
To help protect your
privacy, Microsoft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
SLO
New Request #16543 Assigned to
Code Enforcement
Land Use Violation
Request #16543
Created on May 12, 2026 at 2:31 PM
Estimated Resolution by May 15, 2026
Status Open
Assignee Code Enforcement
2
+ 1 additional attachment
Requester Name
Problem Location:
290 Craig Way
Description
Onoing unlawful fraternity events at 290 Craig Way, zoned R-1, "Keith's House" where Sigma
Phi Epsilon members live and hold fraternity events. The event on May 14, 2026 can be found
on Cal Poly Now at this link: https://now.calpoly.edu/event/12244772
View Request
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the
Internet.
GOGov Logo
1
From:SLO <noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 2:14 PM
To:Mezzapesa, John; Buckley, Nick; Green, Harriet; Salem, Rami
Subject:Ask SLO Notification of new Land Use Violation Request #16540
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Request # 16540 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Code Enforcement.
Request type: Problem
Request area: Land Use Violation
Citizen name:
Description: Illegal Land Use, Continued fraternity use at property already documented to be
operating unlawfully as a fraternity in an R-1 zone. Fraternity party "Alpha Sigma
Phi Biza" held on Saturday, May 9 at 1218 Bond Street. Event listed on DoorList.
Date and address confirmed on post, shown.
Location: 1218 Bond Street
Expected Close Date: May 15, 2026
Click here to access the request
Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are
not monitored and will be ignored.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
1
From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:20 AM
To:Mezzapesa, John
Subject:FW: Request for Clarity of Enforcement Standard and Request to Reopen Code Case #
15570
Attachments:Theta Chi at 330 334 and 340 E. Foothill Blvd.pdf
Hi,
Is there any context you can/want to add regarding this case that may be helpful?
Thanks!
Timothea (Timmi) Tway
Director of Community Development
Community Development
919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E TTway@slocity.org
T 805.781.7187
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: kathie walker <
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 6:58 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>
Cc: Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org>; Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie
<ssymens@slocity.org>; Sandra Rowley <
Subject: Request for Clarity of Enforcement Standard and Request to Reopen Code Case #15570
Timmi and Christine,
I am writing to request that Code Enforcement case #15570 be reopened, and that the City Attorney’s
office provide written clarification of the enforcement standard that applies once a Notice of Violation
has been issued for illegal fraternity use. I am writing to you jointly because the requests are related.
As Director of Community Development, Timmi has authority over the operational enforcement
response, while Christine, as the lead City Attorney, can address the legal question at the center of
this matter. The legal question applies across many properties throughout the City.
On February 5, 2026, I submitted a complaint documenting a Theta Chi fraternity event at 334 E.
Foothill Blvd, the "Theta Chi-Tanic" dayge, advertised on DoorList. (Cal Poly's fraternities have
been trained through FSL to use the DoorList app to track guest lists for their events, and use the
data for post-event reports submitted to Cal Poly.) On February 20, 2026, the City closed that
complaint, noting, "The event has been confirmed, and the appropriate enforcement steps will be
2
taken." The City subsequently issued a Notice of Violation to the property owner and the fraternity.
That Notice required them to cease all fraternal gatherings, meetings, and activities and established
that 334 E. Foothill Blvd is operating as an illegal fraternity use in a prohibited R-1 residential zone.
Theta Chi's fraternity events are held in the shared backyard of properties at 330 & 334 E. Foothill
and 340 E. Foothill. See attachment
On February 28, 2026, Theta Chi held another large gathering at the property, posted on DoorList as
"Theta Chi Biza." Neighboring residents contacted SLOPD about the noise from the fraternity event,
SLOPD officers responded, and a noise citation was issued to Owen Ryan. Mr. Ryan is Theta Chi Cal
Poly’s Risk Manager for 2026, as confirmed by Theta Chi’s Instagram account. The Risk Manager for
each fraternity is usually the person who registers fraternity events for approval to Cal Poly Fraternity
& Sorority Life through its event registration system.
On March 2, 2026, I submitted a code case (case #15570), including the DoorList posting with the
date and time of the fraternity event and the SLOPD citation issued to Owen Ryan. The complaint
referenced the prior NOV and the property’s enforcement history. On May 7, 2026, the case was
closed by Code Enforcement with the following notation: "Spoke with the tenant and he denied any
fraternity events happening at this property. I am unable to verify."
I have two concerns with that closure. The SLOPD citation issued at the property during a Theta Chi
event posted on DoorList for the same date and time, together with the identification of the cited
individual as Theta Chi’s Risk Manager, constitutes substantial evidence relevant to whether the
unlawful fraternity use continued after issuance of the NOV. A tenant’s denial does not negate the
corroborating evidence that a noisy party took place at the same date and time that Theta Chi
advertised its event on DoorList. The determination that the matter was “unable to verify” is not
consistent with either the evidence submitted or the City’s prior enforcement determination regarding
the property’s illegal use as a fraternity.
Administrative enforcement decisions must be supported by substantial evidence and applied in a
consistent and non-arbitrary manner. See Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los
Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515–517 (administrative findings must bridge the analytic gap
between raw evidence and ultimate decision). While the City retains enforcement discretion, prior
verified determinations and subsequent corroborating evidence should materially inform later
enforcement decisions involving the same property, particularly where there is no evidence that the
unlawful use has ceased or been abated.
The second, and broader, question concerns the enforcement standard that applies to complaints
submitted after a Notice of Violation has been issued. Because the City has already made a
determination that the property is operating as an illegal fraternity, subsequent complaints raise a
different and narrower question about whether the unlawful use has ceased or been abated.
Subsequent complaints at the same property should be evaluated against that prior determination of
the illegal use.
The SLOPD citation issued at the property during a Theta Chi event posted on DoorList, together with
the noise citation from SLOPD that cited Owen Ryan, a member of Theta Chi and its Risk Manager,
is substantial evidence that the unlawful fraternity use continued after issuance of the NOV that
established illegal fraternity use at that address.
If the City’s position is instead that each complaint following issuance of an NOV requires a new
determination of whether an unlawful fraternity use exists, irrespective of prior findings and
3
subsequent corroborating evidence, I would ask that the City Attorney state that position in writing
and clarify the evidentiary and enforcement standard the City applies to subsequent complaints after
a Notice of Violation has already been issued. That interpretation would substantially diminish the
practical enforcement significance of Notices of Violation.
The City’s Notices of Violation characterize unlawful fraternity use as a public nuisance requiring
abatement, making the consistency of subsequent enforcement determinations important. This issue
extends beyond a single property because the enforcement standard being applied determines
whether Notices of Violation function as meaningful abatement tools or merely as temporary warnings
without continuing enforcement effect. Because this issue is likely to arise during the May 26 study
session, I would appreciate clarification as soon as possible, before the study session.
Please reopen and investigate case #15570 based on the evidence submitted, take appropriate
enforcement action for continued illegal fraternity use following issuance of the Notice of Violation,
and provide written clarification of the evidentiary and enforcement standard governing complaints
submitted after an NOV has been issued.
Respectfully,
Kathie Walker
Theta Chi fraternity operates at 330, 334 and 340 E. Foothill.
The properties have connecting backyards where events are held as shown on the following page.
•Theta Chi-Tanic fraternity event scheduled for Saturday, February 7, 2026, advertised to be held at
334 E. Foothill.
•Event was reported to Code Enforcement on February 5, 2026.
•Theta Chi held the event on February 7, 2026, and nearby residents called SLOPD twice to report
party at 340 E. Foothill. Call #1 SLOPD arrived at 1:32 PM and call #2 SLOPD arrived at 4:13 PM.
•The City confirmed illegal fraternity operation and confirmed “appropriate enforcement steps will
be taken.”
The City established the illegal fraternity use. Any further fraternity activity would ordinarily be
expected to result in escalation of code enforcement efforts to abate the illegal use at the property.
Theta Chi’s Rush Recruitment video posted on its Instagram page show multiple fraternity events
in the backyard of 330, 334 and 340 E. Foothill Blvd. A screenshot from the video is below shows
they share the backyards of both residences.
•DoorList post: Theta Chi-Biza fraternity event on Saturday, February 28, 2026, starting at 1 PM.
•Nearby resident called SLOPD to report a loud party in the backyard of 334 E. Foothill Blvd.
SLOPD issued a noise citation at appx 1:30 PM to Owen Ryan, Theta Chi’s Risk Manager.
•Event was reported to Code Enforcement on March 2, 2026, with DoorList post and noise citation
from SLOPD at same date/time as Theta Chi’s posted event.
•Code Enforcement closed complaint on May 7, 2026, as
‘unable to verify’ because tenant denied any fraternity events
happening at this property.’
City of San Luis Obispo, City Atto rney’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.78 1.7140, slocity.org
May 11, 2026
Kim Zankich
Via First Class and Certified Mail
Email:
Re: NOTICE OF DECISION
Appeal of Administrative Citation #42584– CITATION UPHELD
To Kim Zankich:
At your administrative citation appeal hearing on April 29, 2026, Hearing Officer Sharon Whitney
reviewed the evidence and made the determination indicated above.
Hearing Officer Whitney’s findings are attached.
Pursuant to Government Code section 53069.4, you may seek judicial review of this decision by
filing a further appeal with the San Luis Obispo Superior Court within twenty calendar days after
service of this notice of decision and paying the filing fee as required by Government Code section
70615 to the San Luis Obispo Superior Court. If you file an appeal pursuant to Government Code
section 53069.4(b)(1), you must serve either in person or via first-class mail on the City a copy of the
notice of appeal. If no appeal is filed with the San Luis Obispo Superior Court within the time
period set forth above, this notice of decision shall be deemed final.
Unless you file an appeal with the San Luis Superior Court, your fine amount of $1,000 is due
to be paid no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this letter. If paying by check, make
the check or money order out to “City of San Luis Obispo” and mail to: Finance Department,
990 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. You may also call in a debit/credit card payment to
Finance at (805) 781-7124. Make sure to have the citation number ready when you call. If
payment is not received after thirty days, the matter will be turned over to the City’s collection
agency.
Sincerely,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant
City Attorney’s Office
Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision
HEARING DECISION ON ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION APPEAL
City of San Luis Obispo, California
In the Matter of Kim Zankich, Property Owner
1. Citation number: 42584
2. Location of cited violation: 1218 Bond St, San Luis Obispo, California
3. Dates of cited violation: 1/17/2026
4. Name and address of person(s) cited: Kim Zankich and Lisa Dorcich,
5. Description of cited violation:
a. SLO City Municipal Code section 17.10.020
b. Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses—Unpermitted Use
c. Fine Assessment: $1,000
6. Date and Time of Hearing: 29 April 2026; 1:30 P.M.
7. Persons Present:
a. Administrative Hearing Officer: Sharon G. Whitney
b. Legal Assistant: Amel Belghoul
c. Community Development Department (CDD) Code Enforcement
Supervisor, John Mezzapesa; and Code Enforcement Office, Rami Salem,
d. Kim Zankich and Lisa Dorich, property owner(s)/agents.
8. At the hearing, Code Enforcement Personnel testified that they have reached out
to Cal Poly and fraternity organizations to educate them about the land use codes
and violations, and that in 2024 Cal Poly verified by a list that 1218 Bond has
been noted as a probable satellite house of Alpha Sigma Phi. During the hearing
CDD officers also acknowledged that they have previously met with the
appellants, and that the only citation at issue in this hearing is the one that CDD
sent out on or about 24 February 2026 for Cal Poly Alpha Sig fraternity RUSH
events advertised on Instagram to occur on 1/15/2025 (FSL BBQ: 4 PM-7 PM);
1/16/2026 (Main House Tour: 7-9 PM); 1/17/2026 (Game Day Watch Party: 11-
2); 1/18/2026 (Cubes n’ Cookout: 2-5 PM); and 1/23/2026 (Smoker & Poker-
Invite Only): TBD. Included in the Administrative Record are photocopies of the
advertised events correlated with those dates, as given in the Instagram
advertising, but the advertising had no address. Photocopied photographs of
individuals and the 1218 Bond Street property included in the administrative
record is for 1/17/2026, taken at 12:24 PM and 12:34 PM. This correlates with
the advertised event called “Game Day Watch Party.”
9. Reasons Property Owner(s)/Agents Appeal the Administrative Citation:
a. In the record: “This property is leased to individual people. It is so stated
as so in the lease.” A “Residential Lease Agreement” was included in the
record, with initials of lessees. Item 31 in the lease states: “It is agreed
that absolutely no fraternity and/or sorority events, affiliations, signs,
flags, meetings, coffees, dinners, get togethers, parties, etc. will be on the
property, held on the property, or inside the house. This property is being
leased to individual people, joint and severally. Should any of the above
occur at this site, this would be a breach of lease and could result in
eviction with total lease term of rent still due to landlord.”
b. In the hearing: Appellants stated that they disagree that any fraternity
event occurred at 1218 Bond Street and disagreed and that there is a
fraternity housed on the property. They asserted they have visited the
property frequently and observed no relevant activity suggestive of
fraternity events. As to the photocopied photographs of individuals in the
driveway at 1218 Bond Street, they deny that it can be shown that their
presence indicated any typical fraternity event. Last, but not least, they
expect that a whole new group of people will be living on the property
soon.
10. CITY’S EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD—This evidence includes but is not
limited to: Notice to Correct Violation(s)/Notice of Violation (Courtesy Warning
Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation); Administration Citation and Order
to Comply With San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; Administrative Citation
Appeal Form; Administrative Citation Appeal Form Instructions; 1 invoice with
fee ($1000); Code Case Activity Report with code enforcement inspections,
observed events, advertising by Alpha Sigma Phi, also known as Alpha Sig; CDD
photocopied photographs of advertising; photographs of property with alleged
RUSH events occurring; Community Development’s Supplemental Information
Sheet, Administration Citation Appeal Hearing (Unpermitted Fraternities/
Sororities), and Community Development’s Supplemental Information-
Addendum use of Event Management Applications (e.g., “DoorList”) as
Evidence.
SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
The CDD provided evidence of a Notice to Correct issued on 16 October 2025 for
observed violations of SLO City Municipal Code section 17.10.020—Unpermitted Use
occurring during September and October of 2025. As I understand it, this is historical
context for evidence of past repeated unpermitted fraternity activity. For this prior matter,
the CDD also provided an Administrative Citation and Order to Comply With San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code has been issued. It was Citation No. 41975. I was not involved as an
Administrative Hearing Officer for that prior citation. It is my understanding that the
appellants have already paid a progressive and cumulative fine to the city for $1,600 for this
prior citation (No. 41975), and it is no longer an open administrative appeal.
OPEN AND CURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION NO. 42584
On or about 2/24/26, Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Officer issued Citation No.:
00042584 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH SAN
LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE, with the date of the violation as 01/17/2026, for 1218
Bond St, San Luis Obispo, APN: 052-091-014, for SLOMC Section 17.10.020, which was
sent to Kim Zankich, It has marked with a
blacked-in square “Additional/Daily Fines.” An invoice for this amount was issued by the
city and sent to Kim Zanich with a due date of 3/26/2026; Its status is “Due.”
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH SAN LUIS OBISPO
MUNICIPAL CODE contains the following bold type all in capitals:
“YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY CORRECT THE
VIOLATION(S) DESCRIBED BELOW AND PAY THE FINE. YOU ARE
FURTHER ORDERED TO CEASE THE ACTIVITY GIVING RISE TO THE
VIOLOATION…. FAILURE TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) WILL
RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE
CITATIONS AND ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT
ACTION.
This form is marked “Additional/Daily Fines.” It contains the Code Section
violated, MC Section 17.10.20; a description of the violation, Use regulations by zone.
Allowed uses—Unpermitted Use; and the Fine, $1000, with amount due, $1000.
The form explains that unpaid fines become delinquent after 30 days and are subject
to interest accrual of 8% per month as contained in SLOMC 1.24.070 C. The City may
pursue all legal, equitable, and administrative remedies for the collection of unpaid fines.
Delinquent fines will be forwarded to a collection agency for payment.
The address for payments is: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development
Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401.
a. The Community Development Department supplied in the record, which
was received also by the appellants, a “Code Case Activity Report Code-
000267-2025 for the City of San Luis Obispo.” It details past inspections,
but the only portion relevant to the extant citation is research done on
1/30/2026 by John Mezzapesa, Code Enforcement Supervisor, with
respect to Instagram advertisements for multiple events to take place on
1/15/2026, 1/16/2026, 1/17/2026, 1/18/2026, and 1/23/2026. No locations
were on the social media post.
b. John Mezzapesa also did an inspection on 1/17/2026, completed at 12:30
PM. He observed individuals seated at a table in the driveway area. He
reported that “During RUSH events, fraternity members are known to sit
at tables and chairs near the entrance of a property to check-in and/or
greet prospective recruits. Additionally, several individuals, many
wearing name tags were observed entering the property. Name tags are
known to be utilized by prospective recruits while attending advertised
RUSH events. Given an event was advertised from 11 AM-2 PM on
1/17/2026 by Alpha Sigma Phi and the property has been previously
identified to be used as a fraternity, and the typical RUSH set up/use of
name tags indicative of a RUSH event was observed, it was determined
that the property was more likely than not being use[d] as a fraternity.”
c. This resulted in Rami Salem creating an additional administrative citation
sent to the property owner, current resident(s), and posted at the site.
d. In addition, the Community Development staff included in the City’s
record, which was also sent to the appellants, photocopied photographs of
the property, on 1/17/2026 (12:24 PM and 12:34 PM) that show the
property of 1218 Bond Street with the individuals appearing outside at
tables, as described in the Case Activity Report. Also, it included
photocopied photographs of Cal Poly RUSH events advertised for Alpha
Sig that correlate with the above inspections and research detailed on the
Case Activity Report, particularly for an event called “Gameday Watch
Party” on 1/17/2026, held between 11-2 PM.
e. Last, but not least, the CDD of San Luis Obispo, CA. provided a
“Supplemental Information Sheet, Administrative Citation Appeal
Hearing (Unpermitted Fraternities/Sororities)” and “Supplemental
Information – Addendum” a document to explain the Use of Event
Management Applications (e.g. “DoorList”) as Evidence, and
• The purpose of the Supplemental Information Sheet for an
Administrative Citation Appeal Hearing (Unpermitted
Fraternities/Sororities) is to “clarify the evidentiary and legal
basis for determining that the subject property was being used
as a fraternity or sorority as defined by the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (SLOMC), and therefore constitutes a
prohibited or unpermitted land use in the applicable zoning
district.
“Because the SLOMC definition of a fraternity/sorority
includes the occurrence of ‘meetings or gatherings,’ but does
not further define these terms, this document provides an
interpretative framework supported by the City’s Zoning
Regulations, observed evidence, and relevant provisions of
California Education Code.”
• The purpose of the Addendum is “to clarify the evidentiary
relevance of event management applications, including but not
limited to “DoorList,” in evaluating whether a property is
being used as a fraternity or sorority as defined in the San Luis
Municipal Code (SLOMC). It is intended to support the
administrative record and provide additional context for
evaluating documented evidence.”
11. HEARING OFFICER’S ANALYSIS AND DECISION
I approach this issue as of the first instance in my experience as an
Administrative Hearing Officer. In doing so, I focus on two questions raised by the
appellants’ reasons for the appeal.
The first question was raised on the record by the appellants’ inclusion of their
Residential Lease Agreement with the tenants, signed by the tenants, specifically with
respect to Item 31 in the lease, namely that the lease absolutely prohibits the use of the
property as a fraternity and warning eviction if there is a violation. In this proffered
reason for their appeal, they did not deny that fraternity activity or events were occurring
at 1218 Bond Street.
Question 1
Does the landlord’s proffered defense that fraternity activity/events, etc. are
absolutely prohibited in the Residential Lease Agreement, including the warning of
eviction, suffice to uphold their appeal and thus deny the validity of the cited
violation(s)?
My answer to this question is NO. My reasoning follows.
Merely inserting language in a lease prohibiting tenants from fraternity
activity, to which the tenants agreed by their signatures on the lease, especially in the
context of the municipal code defining the residential area as unpermitted for
fraternity activity, is not sufficient to show that the landlord gave due diligence in
overseeing the property to insure that no violation of the lease or the municipal code
happened or was continuing to happen. A lack of due diligence is contrary to the
cooperative spirit of abating a continuing public nuisance, of which they were duly
notified, thus ignoring prohibited activities in this residential zone.
On this basis alone, I would deny the appeal and uphold the citations for the
violation of SLO City Municipal Code section 17.10.020; Use regulations by zone.
Allowed uses—Unpermitted Use; Additional Citation, Fine $1000.
.
Question 2
Did the City of San Luis Obispo, CA, through its Community Development
Department, establish with a preponderance of evidence in the record, including
supporting informational documents, that a Cal Poly registered fraternity, Alpha
Sigma Phi, operated at 1218 Bond Street, San Luis Obispo, California, in an
unpermitted residential zone (R1 & R2) and hosted multiple advertised fraternity
events on social media in January 2026, specifically 1/15, 1/16, 1/17, 1/18, and
1/23?
My answer to this question is YES. My reasoning follows.
In my opinion, the Code Case Activity Report and all that is reported there,
plus their supporting photocopied photographs and Supplemental documents,
justify my conclusion that the City has provided a preponderance of evidence
that multiple citations for violating SLOMC Section 17.10.020 occurred. Of
particular interest is the event advertised for 1/17/2026, called Game Day Watch
Party, advertised to occur between 11-2. While the advertisement does not list an
address, research and inspection by the CDD, completed at about 12:30 PM, as
noted in the Code Case Activity Report and as supported by photocopied
photographs of 1218 Bond Street, provide a preponderance of evidence that the
alleged violation of the code at 1218 Bond Street did occur by Cal Poly, Alpha
Sigma Phi, a known organization more likely than not operating fraternity RUSH
activities at 1218 Bond Street.
I acknowledge that the appellant property owners testified during the hearing
by denying that a fraternity was operating at 1218 Bond or at least denied that
their own observations were consistent with CDD’s. They asserted that whenever
they visited the residence, they observed nothing like the prohibited fraternity
activity, but maybe a few individuals outside functioning in an ordinary manner.
Perhaps they were assuming or expecting that a fraternity activity would be more
akin to a loud party activity that they and/or CDD must observe to establish the
prohibited activity. But such loud party activity is not required to establish
unpermitted land use, a fraternity activity at this R-1 zoned residence.
In this regard, I find most useful provisions in the Supplemental Documents
the CDD offered. Most particularly, but not limited to this provision, I refer to the
Supplemental Information Sheet, “Section IV EDUCATION CODE
GUIDANCE—“SANCTIONED EVENT.” It says categorically: California
Education Code Section 66312 (AB 524) defines a “sanctioned event” in the
fraternity/sorority context as an event where one or more of the following occurs:
The event is recognized by the institution as affiliated with a fraternity or
sorority; The organization’s name is used to advertise or publicize the event; The
organization’s name is displayed at the event; Organizational funds are used for
event-related expenses; the organization receives proceeds from the event.”
Moreover, “Notably, the use of an organization’s name to advertise or publicize
an event is, in itself, a determinative characteristic of a sanctioned fraternity or
sorority event.” [Emphasis added.] In my opinion, CDD has provided a
preponderance of evidence consistent with the Education Code Guidance as to
what constitutes a “sanctioned event.”
Furthermore, Section V, EVIDENTIARY BASIS AND DOCUMENTATION of
the Supplemental Information Sheet says “The City’s determination that an event
occurred is based on a combination of direct observations, documentary
evidence, and reasonable inferences from the totality of the circumstances.” This
section outlines Inspection Observations, Social Media and Publicly Available
Information,” Correlation of Evidence—including “Consistency between
observed conditions and promoted activities,” Section VI B. Role of Advertised
Events” says “Evidence of advertised events alone may not be dispositive;
however, when such advertisements are repeated, corroborated by independent
sources (e.g., social media posts, third-party reports, or platform-based event
listings, or reasonably linked to staff observations at the property, they provide
evidence of ‘meeting or gatherings’ as required under the SLOMC’s definition of
a fraternity or sorority.” [Emphasis added]. In my opinion, the CDD has
provided a preponderance of evidence consistent with this section.
Section VIII, TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD says “The
determination that a property is operating as a fraternity or sorority use is not
based on any single piece of evidence, but rather on the totality of the evidence,
including: Observed on-site activity; documented and advertised events;
repetition and pattern of use; organizational association with the property. When
considered together, these factors proved evidence that the property satisfies both
elements of the SLOMC definition: 1. Residential use by members; and 2.
Meetings or gatherings conducted by the organization.”
The document called SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION-ADDENDUM
contains provisions regarding the use of such applications as DoorList, as applied
to land use determination. It says among other helpful provisions, VIII
REASONABLE INFERENCES” [are] “Based on the structured nature of
DoorList events,” so that “it is reasonable to infer that the organization has access
to and operational control over the property, the property functions as a location
for organized gatherings, individuals affiliated with the organization are residing
at or operating from the property, or otherwise maintaining control of the site.
Such inferences are consistent with standard land use analysis and do not require
direct confirmation of residency in all cases.”
In my opinion, the CDD has made and supported its reasonable inferences using
its investigation and research methods, as found in its Code Case Activity Report,
supported by photocopied photographs of advertised events and observations of
activities at 1218 Bond Street, which they have provided in the Administrative
Record to the appellants/property owners and during the Administrative Hearing.
Moreover, Section IX CONCLUSION says “Event management such as
DoorList provide reliable evidence of organized fraternity or sorority activity at a
specific property. The structured nature of these platforms—including event
creation, guest management, and controlled entry—demonstrates a level of
coordination consistent with the “meetings or gatherings” under SLOMC.
“When evaluated as part of the totality of the evidence, DoorList event records
support at determination that a property is more likely than not being used for
fraternity or sorority purposes and may be in violation of applicable zoning
regulations where such use is not permitted or has not been approved through a
Conditional Use Permit.”
In my opinion, the CDD’s use of event management/social media platform
advertising events, as indicated in their Code Case Activity Report, satisfies the
conclusion that they have demonstrated a level of coordination consistent with
the meetings or gatherings of a fraternity or sorority under SLOMC, thus a
property more likely than not being used for a fraternity or sorority, hence an
unpermitted land use.
Thus, I DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the citation for the violation of SLO
City Municipal Code section 17.10.020; Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses—
Unpermitted Use; Additional/Daily Fine, Subtotal: $1,000.
My standard of proof is the preponderance of evidence, supporting a
conclusion that it was more likely than not that violation occurred, and the appellants
are responsible for this violation. Given that I have decided a violation occurred, I
am not permitted to change the amount of the fine.
The decision of the hearing body may be appealed to superior court for de novo
review pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.4 .
Signed: Hearing Officer, Sharon G. Whitney, 5/2/2026.
PROOF OF SERVICE
- 1 -
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
I am employed in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. I am over the age of
18, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California 93401.
On May 11, 2026, I caused the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DECISION to be served on the interested parties in this action
by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes, addressed as follows:
Kim Zankich
Email:
[X] By United States Mail: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope addressed as
indicated above. I am readily familiar with the office’s practice of collection and
processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same
day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served,
service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
than one day after the date of service.
[X] By Certified United States Mail: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope
addressed as indicated above. I completed and attached to the envelope the additional form
required for this type of delivery. I am readily familiar with the office’s practice of
collection and processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal
service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of
the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter
date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
[X] Courtesy Copy by E-mail: I caused this document to be transmitted via e-mail to the e-
mail address listed above.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 11, 2026, at San Luis Obispo, California.
_____________________________
Amel Belghoul
1
From:SLO <sanluisobispoca+noreply@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 2:14 PM
To:Code Enforcement
Subject:New Land Use Violation Request #: 16540 Assigned to Code Enforcement
To help protect your
privacy, Microsoft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
SLO
New Request #16540 Assigned to
Code Enforcement
Land Use Violation
Request #16540
Created on May 12, 2026 at 2:13 PM
Estimated Resolution by May 15, 2026
Status Open
Assignee Code Enforcement
2
Requester Name
Problem Location:
1218 Bond Street
Description
Illegal Land Use, Continued fraternity use at property already documented to be operating
unlawfully as a fraternity in an R-1 zone. Fraternity party "Alpha Sigma Phi Biza" held on
Saturday, May 9 at 1218 Bond Street. Event listed on DoorList. Date and address confirmed on
post, shown.
View Request
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the
Internet.
GOGov Logo
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2026 6:58 PM
To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Dietrick, Christine
Cc:Mezzapesa, John; Kersten, Markie; Symens, Sadie; Sandra Rowley
Subject:Request for Clarity of Enforcement Standard and Request to Reopen Code Case #15570
Attachments:Theta Chi at 330 334 and 340 E. Foothill Blvd.pdf
Timmi and Christine,
I am writing to request that Code Enforcement case #15570 be reopened, and that the City Attorney’s
office provide written clarification of the enforcement standard that applies once a Notice of Violation
has been issued for illegal fraternity use. I am writing to you jointly because the requests are related.
As Director of Community Development, Timmi has authority over the operational enforcement
response, while Christine, as the lead City Attorney, can address the legal question at the center of
this matter. The legal question applies across many properties throughout the City.
On February 5, 2026, I submitted a complaint documenting a Theta Chi fraternity event at 334 E.
Foothill Blvd, the "Theta Chi-Tanic" dayge, advertised on DoorList. (Cal Poly's fraternities have
been trained through FSL to use the DoorList app to track guest lists for their events, and use the
data for post-event reports submitted to Cal Poly.) On February 20, 2026, the City closed that
complaint, noting, "The event has been confirmed, and the appropriate enforcement steps will be
taken." The City subsequently issued a Notice of Violation to the property owner and the fraternity.
That Notice required them to cease all fraternal gatherings, meetings, and activities and established
that 334 E. Foothill Blvd is operating as an illegal fraternity use in a prohibited R-1 residential zone.
Theta Chi's fraternity events are held in the shared backyard of properties at 330 & 334 E. Foothill
and 340 E. Foothill. See attachment
On February 28, 2026, Theta Chi held another large gathering at the property, posted on DoorList as
"Theta Chi Biza." Neighboring residents contacted SLOPD about the noise from the fraternity event,
SLOPD officers responded, and a noise citation was issued to Owen Ryan. Mr. Ryan is Theta Chi Cal
Poly’s Risk Manager for 2026, as confirmed by Theta Chi’s Instagram account. The Risk Manager for
each fraternity is usually the person who registers fraternity events for approval to Cal Poly Fraternity
& Sorority Life through its event registration system.
On March 2, 2026, I submitted a code case (case #15570), including the DoorList posting with the
date and time of the fraternity event and the SLOPD citation issued to Owen Ryan. The complaint
referenced the prior NOV and the property’s enforcement history. On May 7, 2026, the case was
closed by Code Enforcement with the following notation: "Spoke with the tenant and he denied any
fraternity events happening at this property. I am unable to verify."
I have two concerns with that closure. The SLOPD citation issued at the property during a Theta Chi
event posted on DoorList for the same date and time, together with the identification of the cited
individual as Theta Chi’s Risk Manager, constitutes substantial evidence relevant to whether the
unlawful fraternity use continued after issuance of the NOV. A tenant’s denial does not negate the
corroborating evidence that a noisy party took place at the same date and time that Theta Chi
advertised its event on DoorList. The determination that the matter was “unable to verify” is not
2
consistent with either the evidence submitted or the City’s prior enforcement determination regarding
the property’s illegal use as a fraternity.
Administrative enforcement decisions must be supported by substantial evidence and applied in a
consistent and non-arbitrary manner. See Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los
Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515–517 (administrative findings must bridge the analytic gap
between raw evidence and ultimate decision). While the City retains enforcement discretion, prior
verified determinations and subsequent corroborating evidence should materially inform later
enforcement decisions involving the same property, particularly where there is no evidence that the
unlawful use has ceased or been abated.
The second, and broader, question concerns the enforcement standard that applies to complaints
submitted after a Notice of Violation has been issued. Because the City has already made a
determination that the property is operating as an illegal fraternity, subsequent complaints raise a
different and narrower question about whether the unlawful use has ceased or been abated.
Subsequent complaints at the same property should be evaluated against that prior determination of
the illegal use.
The SLOPD citation issued at the property during a Theta Chi event posted on DoorList, together with
the noise citation from SLOPD that cited Owen Ryan, a member of Theta Chi and its Risk Manager,
is substantial evidence that the unlawful fraternity use continued after issuance of the NOV that
established illegal fraternity use at that address.
If the City’s position is instead that each complaint following issuance of an NOV requires a new
determination of whether an unlawful fraternity use exists, irrespective of prior findings and
subsequent corroborating evidence, I would ask that the City Attorney state that position in writing
and clarify the evidentiary and enforcement standard the City applies to subsequent complaints after
a Notice of Violation has already been issued. That interpretation would substantially diminish the
practical enforcement significance of Notices of Violation.
The City’s Notices of Violation characterize unlawful fraternity use as a public nuisance requiring
abatement, making the consistency of subsequent enforcement determinations important. This issue
extends beyond a single property because the enforcement standard being applied determines
whether Notices of Violation function as meaningful abatement tools or merely as temporary warnings
without continuing enforcement effect. Because this issue is likely to arise during the May 26 study
session, I would appreciate clarification as soon as possible, before the study session.
Please reopen and investigate case #15570 based on the evidence submitted, take appropriate
enforcement action for continued illegal fraternity use following issuance of the Notice of Violation,
and provide written clarification of the evidentiary and enforcement standard governing complaints
submitted after an NOV has been issued.
Respectfully,
Kathie Walker
Theta Chi fraternity operates at 330, 334 and 340 E. Foothill.
The properties have connecting backyards where events are held as shown on the following page.
•Theta Chi-Tanic fraternity event scheduled for Saturday, February 7, 2026, advertised to be held at
334 E. Foothill.
•Event was reported to Code Enforcement on February 5, 2026.
•Theta Chi held the event on February 7, 2026, and nearby residents called SLOPD twice to report
party at 340 E. Foothill. Call #1 SLOPD arrived at 1:32 PM and call #2 SLOPD arrived at 4:13 PM.
•The City confirmed illegal fraternity operation and confirmed “appropriate enforcement steps will
be taken.”
The City established the illegal fraternity use. Any further fraternity activity would ordinarily be
expected to result in escalation of code enforcement efforts to abate the illegal use at the property.
Theta Chi’s Rush Recruitment video posted on its Instagram page show multiple fraternity events
in the backyard of 330, 334 and 340 E. Foothill Blvd. A screenshot from the video is below shows
they share the backyards of both residences.
•DoorList post: Theta Chi-Biza fraternity event on Saturday, February 28, 2026, starting at 1 PM.
•Nearby resident called SLOPD to report a loud party in the backyard of 334 E. Foothill Blvd.
SLOPD issued a noise citation at appx 1:30 PM to Owen Ryan, Theta Chi’s Risk Manager.
•Event was reported to Code Enforcement on March 2, 2026, with DoorList post and noise citation
from SLOPD at same date/time as Theta Chi’s posted event.
•Code Enforcement closed complaint on May 7, 2026, as
‘unable to verify’ because tenant denied any fraternity events
happening at this property.’
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Saturday, May 9, 2026 11:48 AM
To:Mezzapesa, John; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Salem, Rami
Subject:Re: Two Frat Party Dayges in the neighborhood Saturday 5/8/2026 at 1 pm
Attachments:dsig party 1.png; dsig party 2.png
Screenshots attached for the fraternity party today at 244 California. When I try to take a screenshot from
my phone, the photo is black (not sure if that's a function of DoorList?) so I had to take a photo of my
screen using a different phone. You can see the address and event description for today from 1pm - 4pm
at 244 California. The other fraternity event is at 1218 Bond Street during the same time period.
On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 11:22 PM kathie walker < wrote:
Alpha Sigma Phi at 1218 Bond, Saturday May 9 at 1 PM --- Please go there and cite them so we
can start to abate these problem houses.
2
Delta Sigma Phi 244 California 1 PM (usually that is the Nile and this say the Oasis so not
sure if they have another illegal rental in the neighborhood)
3
4
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Saturday, May 9, 2026 7:58 AM
To:Mezzapesa, John; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Salem, Rami
Cc:Sandra Rowley; Brett Cross; Carolyn Smith
Subject:Re: Two Frat Party Dayges in the neighborhood Saturday 5/8/2026 at 1 pm
Following up on the parties reported last night, which are now confirmed through DoorList with the
addresses of the fraternities operating illegally:
Alpha Sigma Phi party is confirmed at 1218 Bond St from 1 pm to 4 pm today Saturday 5/9/2026
Delta Sigma Phi party is confirmed at 244 California Blvd from 1 pm to 4 pm today Saturday 5/9/2026
On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 11:22 PM kathie walker < wrote:
Alpha Sigma Phi at 1218 Bond, Saturday May 9 at 1 PM --- Please go there and cite them so we can
start to abate these problem houses.
2
3
Delta Sigma Phi 244 California 1 PM (usually that is the Nile and this say the Oasis so not sure if they
have another illegal rental in the neighborhood)
4
5
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2026 10:37 PM
To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Mezzapesa, John; Dietrick, Christine; Collins, Scott
Cc:Carolyn Smith; Sandra Rowley; Steven Walker
Subject:Rami Continuing to Close Cases When City Has The Evidence - Something Must Change
Attachments:AEPi 2-27-2026.pdf; AEPi 2-14-2026.pdf; AEPi 2-28-2026.pdf; AEPi 1-16 1-17 1-18-2026
winter rush.pdf; AEPi 2-21-2026.pdf
John, Timmi and Christine,
Please help me understand what is going on with code enforcement that simple code cases,
that the City has the documentation for and is well beyond any legal standard to cite,
continue to be dismissed. This is precisely the reason that illegal fraternity operations
throughout the neighborhoods have continued to operate over the course of years without
escalation or abatement. It will never be solved if this pattern continues, as I have explained
multiple times.
Please look at the following two cases and let me know why the cases were closed today,
May 5, 2026, as "unable to verify" despite evidence that the events happened and were in
violation Also, please confirm that Community Development is in possession of the files
downloaded by Eric Wooten on April 16, 2026, that verify seven parties held this year with
100-160 people. That information should be used for the upcoming appeal.
Here are the cases that were wrongly closed as unable to verify. Please provide an
explanation.
Case #1
Case filed for 280 California Blvd, Alpha Epsilon Pi, held event on 2/21/2026 in violation
of its Conditional Use Permit which limits gatherings to 25 people.
2
Steve filed a request for records from Cal Poly for all events held at Alpha Epsilon Pi at
280 California Blvd from December 1, 2025 to the date of production.
On 4/10/2026, Cal Poly provided a link to seven events, including the event on 2/21/2026
that listed 100 people at the party. I forwarded that link to you.
3
On April 16, 2026, Eric Wooten emailed and asked for the verification code to access the
link, which was provided. He indicated he was able to access the files of the AEPi
parties and downloaded them. Therefore, the City had access to Alpha Epsilon Pi's event
registration records that show that they had a party with 100 people on 2/21/2026.
4
The DoorList postings were also captured by John, and I was able to access DoorList
guest lists in real time which showed 375 people "going" to the party. The violation of the
CUP is more than 25, so this party exceeded that limit, confirmed by the registration
form downloaded by the City that showed 100 people at the party that night. I have
downloaded all the parties, including the one on 2/21/2026, for your reference -- but the
City already has them.
Please explain why this code case was closed as unable to verify. I am getting very tired
of seeing this happen again and again, with no consequences or abatement of these
illegal, nuisance properties. The City has the obligation to protect the neighborhoods
and enforce the law, according to the General Plan. Code enforcement, at this point,
seems arbitrary and capricious.
Case #2
Theta Chi posted a dayge party on Saturday 2/28/2026 starting at 1 PM on DoorList,
which Cal Poly has trained its fraternities to use to track guest lists. Someone calls
SLOPD to report a large party in the backyard of 334 Foothill Blvd, which has been
5
documented by Code Enforcement as operating illegally as a fraternity for Theta Chi.
SLOPD issues a noise citation at 1:30 PM.
Because the City has already recognized that 334 E. Foothill is operating illegally as a
fraternity, the illegal use has been established. That use stays with the property until it
has shown to have discontinued and ceased all fraternity activity. When another
fraternity event is published, the City does not have to re-establish the illegal use. It is
already considered an illegal fraternity. Therefore, when it advertises a fraternity event,
especially when the event is cited by SLOPD, that event should be cited.
6
Unfortunately, Code Enforcement (likely Rami Salem) dismissed the case because
fraternity tenants denied the event was fraternity-related. That is not acceptable
enforcement considering the property was already determined by the City to be
operating as a fraternity house through other events (Theta-Titanic, and rush events at
334 E. Foothill). This case should have been cited should be escalated through the
administrative fine schedule toward abatement. It has been an illegal fraternity for three
years and continues to operate.
7
There is another case that was closed today with a similar fact pattern but in order not to
overwhelm you, please provide your reasoning for why these two cases were closed,
despite the evidence, including Cal Poly's registration forms for AEPi that verified the
party with 100 people.
Thank you,
Kathie
Post Event Feedback
Open
Invite all members of this organization and all co-hosts after event approval
No
Maximum number of RSVP spots allowed
0
Count guests against remaining RSVP spots
No
Limit number of guests per RSVP
No
Maximum number of guests allowed per RSVP
0
Organization Representation enabled
No
Organization Representation required
No
Automatically send Event Feedback email to attendees
Do any of the following apply to your event?
(check all that apply)
None of the above or my event does not have any risk
Will there be any collection of funds?
Examples include:
selling items
collecting registration fees
charging admission
selling event sponsorships
No
Will you be playing licensed music or showing a licensed film or video (aka copyrighted
material)?
No
Will alcohol be served or sold at this event?
No
In the event of a medical, fire, or security emergency during my event, I agree to call 911.
Yes
Add an Attachment
Greek Life
Tue, Feb 24, 2026 1:32 PM
Approved by AEPI president through text
Reply
Wed, Feb 18, 2026 3:06 PM
theme is rave
Reply
-$/ ( .. "
POSTCANCEL
G
A
Reviewers
Your Review
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Your Vote: None
Level 1 Association - Membership Z
Greek Life
Level 2 Association - Form G
Voting Reviewers
Sarah 'Didi' Hawkins
Level 2 Association - Form
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Level 3 Association - Form
Level 2 Association - MembershipC
Non-Voting Reviewers
Post Event Feedback
Invite
Invite all members of this organization and all co-hosts after event approval
No
Maximum number of RSVP spots allowed
150
Count guests against remaining RSVP spots
No
Limit number of guests per RSVP
No
Maximum number of guests allowed per RSVP
0
Organization Representation enabled
No
Organization Representation required
No
Automatically send Event Feedback email to attendees
Do any of the following apply to your event?
(check all that apply)
None of the above or my event does not have any risk
Will there be any collection of funds?
Examples include:
selling items
collecting registration fees
charging admission
selling event sponsorships
No
Will you be playing licensed music or showing a licensed film or video (aka copyrighted
material)?
No
Will alcohol be served or sold at this event?
Yes
In the event of a medical, fire, or security emergency during my event, I agree to call 911.
Yes
Discussion
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Add an Attachment
Emergency Contact #2
Name:
Emergency Contact #2
Phone:
Is there anyone who will be attending your event who is trained in First Aid CPR/AED?
No
rite a (essa"e
POSTCANCEL
Your Review
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Your Vote: None Ő
Reviewers
Level 1 Association - Membership J
Greek Life
Level 2 Association - Form G
Sarah 'Didi' Hawkins
Level 2 Association - Form
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Level 3 Association - Form
Emily Rutherford
Level 3 Association - Form E
Voting Reviewers
Where does your event take place?
Off-Campus
Please describe the event's theme and/or activities. Be specific. For example, don't just say
"games." "Instead, state what kind of games. For example: "This is a board game tournament
with 30 people" or "This is a hula-hoop contest." This information is for risk assessment
purposes and will not be advertised.
Jewmanji themed party where you can meet the brothers
Do any of the following apply to your event?
(check all that apply)
None of the above or my event does not have any risk
Will there be any collection of funds?
Examples include:
selling items
collecting registration fees
charging admission
selling event sponsorships
No
Will you be playing licensed music or showing a licensed film or video (aka copyrighted
material)?
No
Will alcohol be served or sold at this event?
Yes
Discussion
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Add an Attachment
I agree to serve as the main event contact. I will be present at the event and I can be
reached at the following phone number during the event:
(including area code)
Emergency Contact #2
Name:
Emergency Contact #2
Phone:
Is there anyone who will be attending your event who is trained in First Aid CPR/AED?
No
rite a messa"e
POSTCANCEL
Your Review
Reviewers
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Your Vote: None Ő
Level 1 Association - Membership J
Greek Life
Level 2 Association - Form G
Sarah 'Didi' Hawkins
Level 2 Association - Form
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Level 3 Association - Form
Emily Rutherford
Level 3 Association - Form E
Voting Reviewers
with 30 people" or "This is a hula-hoop contest." This information is for risk assessment
purposes and will not be advertised.
Rush Events for the fraternity
Do any of the following apply to your event?
(check all that apply)
None of the above or my event does not have any risk
Will there be any collection of funds?
Examples include:
selling items
collecting registration fees
charging admission
selling event sponsorships
No
Will you be playing licensed music or showing a licensed film or video (aka copyrighted
material)?
No
Will alcohol be served or sold at this event?
No
In the event of a medical, fire, or security emergency during my event, I agree to call 911.
Yes
As a member of the organization sponsoring the event described on this document, I take
responsibility to ensure that the activity will abide by all Cal Poly State University and ASI
policies and procedures. I have reviewed the Cal Poly Recognized Student Organization (RSO)
Add an Attachment
POSTCANCEL
Reviewers
Your Review
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Your Vote: None
Level 1 Association - Membership J
Greek Life
Level 2 Association - Form G
Sarah 'Didi' Hawkins
Level 2 Association - Form
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Level 3 Association - Form
Voting Reviewers
Where does your event take place?
Off-Campus
Please describe the event's theme and/or activities. Be specific. For example, don't just say
"games." "Instead, state what kind of games. For example: "This is a board game tournament
with 30 people" or "This is a hula-hoop contest." This information is for risk assessment
purposes and will not be advertised.
A space rave at our main fraternity house where invited guests can socialize!
Do any of the following apply to your event?
(check all that apply)
None of the above or my event does not have any risk
Will there be any collection of funds?
Examples include:
selling items
collecting registration fees
charging admission
selling event sponsorships
No
Will you be playing licensed music or showing a licensed film or video (aka copyrighted
material)?
No
Will alcohol be served or sold at this event?
Yes
Discussion
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Add an Attachment
I agree to serve as the main event contact. I will be present at the event and I can be
reached at the following phone number during the event:
(including area code)
Emergency Contact #2
Name:
Emergency Contact #2
Phone:
Is there anyone who will be attending your event who is trained in First Aid CPR/AED?
No
rite a (essa"e
POSTCANCEL
Your Review
Reviewers
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Your Vote: None Ő
Level 1 Association - Membership J
Greek Life
Level 2 Association - Form G
Sarah 'Didi' Hawkins
Level 2 Association - Form
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Level 3 Association - Form
Emily Rutherford
Level 3 Association - Form E
Voting Reviewers
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2026 7:54 AM
To:Mezzapesa, John
Subject:Re: Fraternity houses were documented by Cal Poly PD
Hi John.
There are code complaints missing from the code case history for 281 Albert Drive that you sent me
I requested the entire code case file for 281 Albert Drive since our meeting on November 8, 2023,
which would include all code complaints and the outcome. You sent me some recent cases but did not
send the entire file. For example, I have filed code complaints that were dismissed as unfounded. They
are not shown on the information you sent me.
One example that is not in the files you sent:
Please send me the entire file for 281 Albert Drive, including all code case requests and the outcome.
Thank you,
Kathie
On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 2:15 PM kathie walker < wrote:
Hi John,
Was the first code case for fraternity activity issued in 2025? Nothing earlier?
The address was on the AB 524 report when notices and letters went out in 2024.
Thank you,
Kathie
On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 11:33 AM Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org> wrote:
2
HI Kathie,
I apologize for the delay in getting this to you.
Please find the case files related to fraternity activity for 281 Albert attached. The original notice was sent to an
incorrect address that was on file in our system rather than to the assessor's roll address for the property. Given
the property owner did not receive the initial notice we decided to void the issued citations and re-issue the
NOV.
John Mezzapesa
Code Enforcement Supervisor
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development
Building and Safety
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668
E jmezzapesa@slocity.org
T 805.781.7179
C
slocity.org
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Of…
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Of…
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Of…
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Of…
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Of…
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: kathie walker <
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 3:32 PM
To: Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Fraternity houses were documented by Cal Poly PD
Hi John,
Did you route my request for the code case file for 281 Albert Dr through the Clerk or can you send me
the records directly? I asked you for the info a while back. I need the code enforcement file for 281
Albert (dating back from our meeting on 11/8/2023 when it was brought to the City's attention that it
was an illegal fraternity house) but never received it from you.
I have been going through records and am absolutely floored to see that Cal Poly was sending the lists
to the City of the dates, times and addresses of all fraternity parties since the 2021-2022 academic
year through at least the end of the 2023-2024 academic year. While I was reporting addresses to you,
and you were saying you couldn't prove they were a fraternity, SLOPD had the lists of all the addresses
that I was telling you about.
In early 2023 when I asked Wallace about the City's law related to fraternities, and about specific
fraternity addresses, she denied knowledge, but some of the addresses I asked her about were on the
lists leading up to that time. She accessed those lists on Monday every week to compare them with the
dispatch log, so she knew about the addresses I asked her about despite what she told me.
3
I am now going through my emails sent and received, and cross-referencing them with the information
that the City had during those times. There were many misrepresentations that were made to me. It is
deeply frustrating and heartbreaking that the City had the information and could have solved this
problem a long time ago.
Those addresses that you asked Cal Poly to confirm -- they are in the weekly lists sent to SLOPD for the
2023-2024 school year. You didn't need them from Cal Poly because the City already had them the
whole time.
I have sent the info to my attorney and am speaking with the media. Meanwhile, I need that file for 281
Albert that I asked for a while ago. If you routed it through the Clerk, I should have received the file by
now. If not, please forward it to me. I am building a timeline based on the documents, comparing what
was said in emails to what the records show, building the record with documentation.There is a lot
more to the story that I don't want to get into because it goes beyond code enforcement, but it will
eventually come out as I piece all of this together. It is mind boggling and makes me feel very sad about
how this has played out, and that the problem has still not been solved.
Thank you for your help,
Kathie
On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 10:27 PM kathie walker < wrote:
John,
I have not heard back with answers to my questions and it's been a while. Would you please send me
the code case file for 281 Albert Drive?
Thank you,
Kathie
On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 11:00 AM kathie walker < wrote:
I haven't heard back so wanted to follow up.
1. Why was the CDD not made aware of the weekly lists of FSL approved events being held in the City,
which were sent to SLOPD by Cal Poly PD? City emails show this was happening before and during
our conversations about enforcement, and the CDD was unaware of the locations.
2. Do you know why those locations were allowed to continually hold events, in violation of the zoning
code? Christine Wallace has repeatedly said, "I'm not code enforcement." as though it excuses the
failure to act on these violations. We want to understand how the City is coordinating at this point to
make some progress.
3. What is the current status of Delta Upsilon's fraternity house at 281 Albert Drive? Have the recent
cases been heard by the Hearing Officer? If so, please provide those records.
The appeal information I received for code violations at 281 Albert Drive is confusing, especially
because there appear to be multiple clerical errors which resulted in refunds to the appellant. It is
not clear what, if any, violations resulted from the ongoing fraternity events at the property. (see
attached files)
4
4. When you presented the case to the Hearing Officer, did you include the AB 524 information from
Cal Poly that documented this address as a fraternity? Or are you presenting the individual cases as
isolated events? It's important to build a case based on the entire record so the Hearing Officer sees
the pattern and practice.
5. Have you requested event records from Cal Poly for the fraternity for events registered in
2026? Steve asked for Alpha Epsilon Pi's registration records for 2026 and Cal Poly sent them 10 days
later. (They show seven parties with 100 - 160 people before the re-review hearing.) The registration
records support the DoorList postings and are an important component of building the case to allow
the Hearing Officer to see the whole picture.
Please let me know the answers to my questions. We have been trying to get this issue solved since
our meeting in November 2023 and expected to be further along at this point.
Back in 2024, after Advisory Letters and NOVs were sent to fraternity properties listed on the AB 524
reports, I audited those records and found many addresses were missed, including 281 Albert Drive
and sent a follow-up report (See attached: CDD fraternity action). If the City would have documented
those addresses at that time, then held the property owner responsible for subsequent violations, we
would not be in this situation today. This case is an example and indication of the overall problem
and is the reason this horrible problem has continued to plague our neighborhoods, which continues
to the present.
Before our meeting on Friday, I'd like to know the answers to these questions.
Thank you,
Kathie
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of
this picture …
281 Albert Drive appeal 49 pgs.pdf
To help
protect your privacy,
Microsoft
Office
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture …
281 Albert Drive appeal 53 pgs.pdf
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 4:34 PM kathie walker < wrote:
Hi John,
I'm going through the records produced by the City and have questions, but first I wanted to flag
something that I found. It appears that while CDD staff were looking for evidence that certain
addresses were being used as fraternity houses, SLOPD knew the addresses because Cal Poly PD
was sending lists of the approved FSL events to a SLOPD lieutenant every weekend and those lists
were passed along to Christine Wallace.
Based on notes from my meeting with you and Timmi in November 2023, Timmi was skeptical of
using information from social media, including posts of events made by the fraternities, but was
comfortable relying on Cal Poly's AB 524 reports. However, SLOPD was receiving weekly lists from
Cal Poly PD. I am not sure why this information was not communicated with the CDD.
5
It's a bit frustrating to read the records and realize the departments were siloed where collaboration
could have rectified the situation much sooner. Instead, the number of fraternity houses
exponentially expanded throughout the neighborhoods and continue to operate today. :(
I've attached one of the emails that shows the lists were being sent from Cal Poly PD to SLOPD. The
most confusing part for me is that Derek Johnson told me in 2022 that fraternities were illegal in all
R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, and needed a permit for R-3 and R-4 neighborhoods. Meanwhile,
SLOPD was fully aware of the addresses where illegal fraternity operations were happening. That
doesn't make sense.
I hope you'll attend the meeting on Friday, April 24 at 3 pm at the CDD with RQN regarding the
upcoming study session on May 26.
-Kathie
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2026 2:16 PM
To:Mezzapesa, John
Subject:Re: Fraternity houses were documented by Cal Poly PD
Hi John,
Was the first code case for fraternity activity issued in 2025? Nothing earlier?
The address was on the AB 524 report when notices and letters went out in 2024.
Thank you,
Kathie
On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 11:33 AM Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org> wrote:
HI Kathie,
I apologize for the delay in getting this to you.
Please find the case files related to fraternity activity for 281 Albert attached. The original notice was sent to an
incorrect address that was on file in our system rather than to the assessor's roll address for the property. Given
the property owner did not receive the initial notice we decided to void the issued citations and re-issue the NOV.
John Mezzapesa
Code Enforcement Supervisor
Community Development
Building and Safety
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668
E jmezzapesa@slocity.org
T 805.781.7179
C
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: kathie walker <
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 3:32 PM
To: Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Fraternity houses were documented by Cal Poly PD
2
Hi John,
Did you route my request for the code case file for 281 Albert Dr through the Clerk or can you send me
the records directly? I asked you for the info a while back. I need the code enforcement file for 281
Albert (dating back from our meeting on 11/8/2023 when it was brought to the City's attention that it was
an illegal fraternity house) but never received it from you.
I have been going through records and am absolutely floored to see that Cal Poly was sending the lists
to the City of the dates, times and addresses of all fraternity parties since the 2021-2022 academic year
through at least the end of the 2023-2024 academic year. While I was reporting addresses to you, and
you were saying you couldn't prove they were a fraternity, SLOPD had the lists of all the addresses that I
was telling you about.
In early 2023 when I asked Wallace about the City's law related to fraternities, and about specific
fraternity addresses, she denied knowledge, but some of the addresses I asked her about were on the
lists leading up to that time. She accessed those lists on Monday every week to compare them with the
dispatch log, so she knew about the addresses I asked her about despite what she told me.
I am now going through my emails sent and received, and cross-referencing them with the information
that the City had during those times. There were many misrepresentations that were made to me. It is
deeply frustrating and heartbreaking that the City had the information and could have solved this
problem a long time ago.
Those addresses that you asked Cal Poly to confirm -- they are in the weekly lists sent to SLOPD for the
2023-2024 school year. You didn't need them from Cal Poly because the City already had them the
whole time.
I have sent the info to my attorney and am speaking with the media. Meanwhile, I need that file for 281
Albert that I asked for a while ago. If you routed it through the Clerk, I should have received the file by
now. If not, please forward it to me. I am building a timeline based on the documents, comparing what
was said in emails to what the records show, building the record with documentation.There is a lot more
to the story that I don't want to get into because it goes beyond code enforcement, but it will eventually
come out as I piece all of this together. It is mind boggling and makes me feel very sad about how this
has played out, and that the problem has still not been solved.
Thank you for your help,
Kathie
On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 10:27 PM kathie walker < wrote:
John,
I have not heard back with answers to my questions and it's been a while. Would you please send me
the code case file for 281 Albert Drive?
Thank you,
Kathie
On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 11:00 AM kathie walker < wrote:
3
I haven't heard back so wanted to follow up.
1. Why was the CDD not made aware of the weekly lists of FSL approved events being held in the City,
which were sent to SLOPD by Cal Poly PD? City emails show this was happening before and during our
conversations about enforcement, and the CDD was unaware of the locations.
2. Do you know why those locations were allowed to continually hold events, in violation of the zoning
code? Christine Wallace has repeatedly said, "I'm not code enforcement." as though it excuses the
failure to act on these violations. We want to understand how the City is coordinating at this point to
make some progress.
3. What is the current status of Delta Upsilon's fraternity house at 281 Albert Drive? Have the recent
cases been heard by the Hearing Officer? If so, please provide those records.
The appeal information I received for code violations at 281 Albert Drive is confusing, especially
because there appear to be multiple clerical errors which resulted in refunds to the appellant. It is not
clear what, if any, violations resulted from the ongoing fraternity events at the property. (see attached
files)
4. When you presented the case to the Hearing Officer, did you include the AB 524 information from
Cal Poly that documented this address as a fraternity? Or are you presenting the individual cases as
isolated events? It's important to build a case based on the entire record so the Hearing Officer sees
the pattern and practice.
5. Have you requested event records from Cal Poly for the fraternity for events registered in
2026? Steve asked for Alpha Epsilon Pi's registration records for 2026 and Cal Poly sent them 10 days
later. (They show seven parties with 100 - 160 people before the re-review hearing.) The registration
records support the DoorList postings and are an important component of building the case to allow
the Hearing Officer to see the whole picture.
Please let me know the answers to my questions. We have been trying to get this issue solved since
our meeting in November 2023 and expected to be further along at this point.
Back in 2024, after Advisory Letters and NOVs were sent to fraternity properties listed on the AB 524
reports, I audited those records and found many addresses were missed, including 281 Albert Drive
and sent a follow-up report (See attached: CDD fraternity action). If the City would have documented
those addresses at that time, then held the property owner responsible for subsequent violations, we
would not be in this situation today. This case is an example and indication of the overall problem and
is the reason this horrible problem has continued to plague our neighborhoods, which continues to
the present.
Before our meeting on Friday, I'd like to know the answers to these questions.
Thank you,
Kathie
The linked
image cannot
be displayed.
The file may
have been
mov ed,
renamed, or
deleted.
Verify that t…
281 Albert Drive appeal 49 pgs.pdf
4
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted.
Verify that t…
281 Albert Drive appeal 53 pgs.pdf
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 4:34 PM kathie walker < wrote:
Hi John,
I'm going through the records produced by the City and have questions, but first I wanted to flag
something that I found. It appears that while CDD staff were looking for evidence that certain
addresses were being used as fraternity houses, SLOPD knew the addresses because Cal Poly PD
was sending lists of the approved FSL events to a SLOPD lieutenant every weekend and those lists
were passed along to Christine Wallace.
Based on notes from my meeting with you and Timmi in November 2023, Timmi was skeptical of
using information from social media, including posts of events made by the fraternities, but was
comfortable relying on Cal Poly's AB 524 reports. However, SLOPD was receiving weekly lists from
Cal Poly PD. I am not sure why this information was not communicated with the CDD.
It's a bit frustrating to read the records and realize the departments were siloed where collaboration
could have rectified the situation much sooner. Instead, the number of fraternity houses
exponentially expanded throughout the neighborhoods and continue to operate today. :(
I've attached one of the emails that shows the lists were being sent from Cal Poly PD to SLOPD. The
most confusing part for me is that Derek Johnson told me in 2022 that fraternities were illegal in all R-
1 and R-2 neighborhoods, and needed a permit for R-3 and R-4 neighborhoods. Meanwhile, SLOPD
was fully aware of the addresses where illegal fraternity operations were happening. That doesn't
make sense.
I hope you'll attend the meeting on Friday, April 24 at 3 pm at the CDD with RQN regarding the
upcoming study session on May 26.
-Kathie
1
From:Mezzapesa, John
Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2026 11:33 AM
To:kathie walker
Subject:Re: Fraternity houses were documented by Cal Poly PD
Attachments:CODE-000018-2025.pdf; CODE-000273-2025 Redacted.pdf
HI Kathie,
I apologize for the delay in getting this to you.
Please find the case files related to fraternity activity for 281 Albert attached. The original notice was sent to an
incorrect address that was on file in our system rather than to the assessor's roll address for the property. Given
the property owner did not receive the initial notice we decided to void the issued citations and re-issue the NOV.
John Mezzapesa
Code Enforcement Supervisor
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development
Building and Safety
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3668
E jmezzapesa@slocity.org
T 805.781.7179
C
slocity.org
To
help
prot
ect
you
r
priv
acy,
Micr
osof
t
Of…
To
help
prot
ect
you
r
priv
acy,
Micr
osof
t
Of…
To
help
prot
ect
you
r
priv
acy,
Micr
osof
t
Of…
To
help
prot
ect
you
r
priv
acy,
Micr
osof
t
Of…
To
help
prot
ect
you
r
priv
acy,
Micr
osof
t
Of…
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: kathie walker <
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2026 3:32 PM
To: Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Fraternity houses were documented by Cal Poly PD
Hi John,
Did you route my request for the code case file for 281 Albert Dr through the Clerk or can you send me
the records directly? I asked you for the info a while back. I need the code enforcement file for 281 Albert
(dating back from our meeting on 11/8/2023 when it was brought to the City's attention that it was an
illegal fraternity house) but never received it from you.
I have been going through records and am absolutely floored to see that Cal Poly was sending the lists to
the City of the dates, times and addresses of all fraternity parties since the 2021-2022 academic year
through at least the end of the 2023-2024 academic year. While I was reporting addresses to you, and
2
you were saying you couldn't prove they were a fraternity, SLOPD had the lists of all the addresses that I
was telling you about.
In early 2023 when I asked Wallace about the City's law related to fraternities, and about specific
fraternity addresses, she denied knowledge, but some of the addresses I asked her about were on the
lists leading up to that time. She accessed those lists on Monday every week to compare them with the
dispatch log, so she knew about the addresses I asked her about despite what she told me.
I am now going through my emails sent and received, and cross-referencing them with the information
that the City had during those times. There were many misrepresentations that were made to me. It is
deeply frustrating and heartbreaking that the City had the information and could have solved this
problem a long time ago.
Those addresses that you asked Cal Poly to confirm -- they are in the weekly lists sent to SLOPD for the
2023-2024 school year. You didn't need them from Cal Poly because the City already had them the whole
time.
I have sent the info to my attorney and am speaking with the media. Meanwhile, I need that file for 281
Albert that I asked for a while ago. If you routed it through the Clerk, I should have received the file by
now. If not, please forward it to me. I am building a timeline based on the documents, comparing what
was said in emails to what the records show, building the record with documentation.There is a lot more
to the story that I don't want to get into because it goes beyond code enforcement, but it will eventually
come out as I piece all of this together. It is mind boggling and makes me feel very sad about how this
has played out, and that the problem has still not been solved.
Thank you for your help,
Kathie
On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 10:27 PM kathie walker < wrote:
John,
I have not heard back with answers to my questions and it's been a while. Would you please send me
the code case file for 281 Albert Drive?
Thank you,
Kathie
On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 11:00 AM kathie walker < wrote:
I haven't heard back so wanted to follow up.
1. Why was the CDD not made aware of the weekly lists of FSL approved events being held in the City,
which were sent to SLOPD by Cal Poly PD? City emails show this was happening before and during our
conversations about enforcement, and the CDD was unaware of the locations.
2. Do you know why those locations were allowed to continually hold events, in violation of the zoning
code? Christine Wallace has repeatedly said, "I'm not code enforcement." as though it excuses the
failure to act on these violations. We want to understand how the City is coordinating at this point to
make some progress.
3
3. What is the current status of Delta Upsilon's fraternity house at 281 Albert Drive? Have the recent
cases been heard by the Hearing Officer? If so, please provide those records.
The appeal information I received for code violations at 281 Albert Drive is confusing, especially
because there appear to be multiple clerical errors which resulted in refunds to the appellant. It is not
clear what, if any, violations resulted from the ongoing fraternity events at the property. (see attached
files)
4. When you presented the case to the Hearing Officer, did you include the AB 524 information from
Cal Poly that documented this address as a fraternity? Or are you presenting the individual cases as
isolated events? It's important to build a case based on the entire record so the Hearing Officer sees
the pattern and practice.
5. Have you requested event records from Cal Poly for the fraternity for events registered in
2026? Steve asked for Alpha Epsilon Pi's registration records for 2026 and Cal Poly sent them 10 days
later. (They show seven parties with 100 - 160 people before the re-review hearing.) The registration
records support the DoorList postings and are an important component of building the case to allow
the Hearing Officer to see the whole picture.
Please let me know the answers to my questions. We have been trying to get this issue solved since our
meeting in November 2023 and expected to be further along at this point.
Back in 2024, after Advisory Letters and NOVs were sent to fraternity properties listed on the AB 524
reports, I audited those records and found many addresses were missed, including 281 Albert Drive
and sent a follow-up report (See attached: CDD fraternity action). If the City would have documented
those addresses at that time, then held the property owner responsible for subsequent violations, we
would not be in this situation today. This case is an example and indication of the overall problem and
is the reason this horrible problem has continued to plague our neighborhoods, which continues to the
present.
Before our meeting on Friday, I'd like to know the answers to these questions.
Thank you,
Kathie
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of
this picture …
281 Albert Drive appeal 49 pgs.pdf
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of
this picture …
281 Albert Drive appeal 53 pgs.pdf
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 4:34 PM kathie walker < wrote:
Hi John,
I'm going through the records produced by the City and have questions, but first I wanted to flag
something that I found. It appears that while CDD staff were looking for evidence that certain
addresses were being used as fraternity houses, SLOPD knew the addresses because Cal Poly PD
4
was sending lists of the approved FSL events to a SLOPD lieutenant every weekend and those lists
were passed along to Christine Wallace.
Based on notes from my meeting with you and Timmi in November 2023, Timmi was skeptical of using
information from social media, including posts of events made by the fraternities, but was
comfortable relying on Cal Poly's AB 524 reports. However, SLOPD was receiving weekly lists from Cal
Poly PD. I am not sure why this information was not communicated with the CDD.
It's a bit frustrating to read the records and realize the departments were siloed where collaboration
could have rectified the situation much sooner. Instead, the number of fraternity houses exponentially
expanded throughout the neighborhoods and continue to operate today. :(
I've attached one of the emails that shows the lists were being sent from Cal Poly PD to SLOPD. The
most confusing part for me is that Derek Johnson told me in 2022 that fraternities were illegal in all R-1
and R-2 neighborhoods, and needed a permit for R-3 and R-4 neighborhoods. Meanwhile, SLOPD was
fully aware of the addresses where illegal fraternity operations were happening. That doesn't make
sense.
I hope you'll attend the meeting on Friday, April 24 at 3 pm at the CDD with RQN regarding the
upcoming study session on May 26.
-Kathie
CODE CASE ACTIVITY REPORT CODE-000018-2025
FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Address:07/11/2025Closed Date:CompliantStatus:281 Albert Dr
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
01/28/2025Opened Date:Rami SalemAssigned ToCode EnforcementCase Type:
Activity Date Created By Activity Type CommentsActivity Name
01/28/2025 Generated and mailed a notice of violation to
owner's address along with Director's review
form. Generated and mailed a copy of the
NOV to the tenants as well.
Notice of ViolationRami Salem 01/28/2025
Initial inspection completed by Code
Enforcement Technician, R. Salem failed on
01/18/2025. R. Salem observed a fraternal
unsanctioned event at the property (rush
event) resulting in a land use permit violation.
At the time of inspection Greek letters
representing a fraternity were displayed at
the front of the residence. A gathering of
college aged individuals was also seen in the
driveway of the residence.
InspectionRami Salem 01/18/2025
02/05/2025 Went and visited property. Spoke with tenants
and fraternity members. Exchanged
information and explained the process of
holding an unsanctioned event in a
non-permitted property and why it is a land
use violation.
MeetingRami Salem 01/31/2025
07/11/2025 I have not observed unsanctioned fraternal
activity at this location for more than 30 days.
Closed.
ClosedRami Salem 07/11/2025
Page 1 of 1City of San Luis ObispoApril 13, 2026
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
January 28, 2025
281 Albert Dr
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 281 Albert Dr San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-322-009
Code Case #: CODE-000018-2025
Dear Property Owner,
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff has been made aware of violations
of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code located at 281 Albert Dr Within the City of San Luis Obispo, a
fraternity or 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 section 17.10.020 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The city
defines a Fraternity/Sorority as:
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. (SLOMC 17.156.014).
In summary, a location meets the definition of a fraternity or sorority when it houses fraternity/sorority
members AND holds a meeting or gathering hosted by a social or educational association.
On January 18th, 2024, 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 (SLO MC §17.10.020):
A. 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 matter of right
MUP The use requires a minor use permit approved by the director, as provided in
Section 17.110.030 (Procedure-Minor Use Permit).
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in Section 17.110.030 (Procedure-Minor Use Permit).
M/A The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor use permit
review, the use may be established on the ground floor.
Corrective Action:
1. Stop all fraternal gatherings, meetings, or activities at this property.
2. Remove any and all fraternal identifying markers from the property such as painted
letters, brandings, or any item(s) similar to that in nature.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) immediately. These
violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Failure to correct the violation(s) as soon as
possible 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 at (805) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAMI SALEM
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Technician & Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
January 28, 2025
Adams Family Investments
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 281 Albert Dr San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-322-009
Code Case #: CODE-000018-2025
Dear Property Owner,
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff has been made aware of violations
of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code located at 281 Albert Dr Within the City of San Luis Obispo, a
fraternity or 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 section 17.10.020 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The city
defines a Fraternity/Sorority as:
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. (SLOMC 17.156.014).
In summary, a location meets the definition of a fraternity or sorority when it houses fraternity/sorority
members AND holds a meeting or gathering hosted by a social or educational association.
On January 18th, 2024, 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 (SLO MC §17.10.020):
A. 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 matter of right
MUP The use requires a minor use permit approved by the director, as provided in
Section 17.110.030 (Procedure-Minor Use Permit).
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in Section 17.110.030 (Procedure-Minor Use Permit).
M/A The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor use permit
review, the use may be established on the ground floor.
Corrective Action:
1. Stop all fraternal gatherings, meetings, or activities at this property.
2. Remove any and all fraternal identifying markers from the property such as painted
letters, brandings, or any item(s) similar to that in nature.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) immediately. These
violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Failure to correct the violation(s) as soon as
possible 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 at (805) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAMI SALEM
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Technician & Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
!
! !"
#$ !
! ! %&$
" #$%! '#
(!%)%!' ! ! '(!%)%!' '# **$! (!%)%!' *
& ' () & "& "
% !" % " * + + $ ,
( %%
-
.
$
% $ /* % "
$ , % " * + + '0
"& ' + & * " !" +
+ & / %
. 1+
! $ + %
$ ,. % * %! "
!
-
2 34 , "
#$%! $$. ' % &
"&" * &" + $ ,"
. ' () & $ , !!
/* + % $
, %+%/5 " ' % &
% .
"" , "' + &
& "&" !, *' ! '
* &" ' + ,. 6!
' /* 0" , % &
% *+ "' "& " ()
& . 7& & * "& " $!
45 34
-
" + , +
&, " $" "
$ , " + ,% () $
! ' "% & $ () & *
&" * " !" + + ,
* ! /, + '
$ , "' + & .
% 8+ 400
-
$ $ & 3 & $
% " % $" ! " " .
% " & $ % !.
"! 8+ 400
9 %+ $" + & * "& "
'! / %
9. 1+
% !" " , (
%"" + $ + & %%' +
," $ + ,
. 7&
% !" +*" () &
%%' + "% " + ,
+ &, " $" "
$ , * " !" + + ,
* ! /, + '
$ ,.
%+8+ 400
9
9 %+ $" + & * "& "
/ %
9. 1+
% !" " , (
%"" % $ + & :
;.
7& + % !" +*"
& %%' + "% " +
, + &, " $"
" $ , * " !" + +
, * ! /, + '
$ ,.
%+8+ 400
9
3' $
, $
9
+,
(!%)%!' ! ! '(!%)%!' '# **$! (!%)%!' *
9 7 " "! & % "
% , * " %
" :; $ % " % $".
"
"! ! !
9
7 " "! & % "
% , * " %
" :; $ % " % $".
"! ! !
9
7 " "! & % "
% , * " %
" :; $ % " % $".
"
"! ! !
9
-
9
"! & " $". 1+ '
6 * " + %% "" "
+ 3 "" %&" + %. *
"%"" &" % " 6 "
6 + $%!
%.
+8+ 400 -
9
9 61 6 3 & $ % ! "
!" 3
6 % $ 8+ 400 -
9
9 %+ $" + & * "& "
/ %
9. 1+
% !" " , (
%"" % $ + & :
;.
7& + % !" +*"
& %%' + "% " +
, + &, " $"
" $ , * " !" + +
, * ! /, + ' "
$ ,. 1+ & $ + &
* " $ % <
-
%+8+ 400
9
3'
$
, $
9
!"
# # $% %&'$ '(')$* +
,% %&'$ '(')$* +
%%'')$(- %&'$* +
* +. -/", ,
($
!'0 /'01)
"1), "2
'/,(,34 !$'5'1(-'36$7)'5"6"&'6)
%%,"00
'$"
%%,"00
'$"
%%,"00
'$"
'3 )8
($
!'0 /'01) (,59
(:" )8
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
January 28, 2025
Adams Family Investments
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 281 Albert Dr San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-322-009
Code Case #: CODE-000018-2025
Dear Property Owner,
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff has been made aware of violations
of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code located at 281 Albert Dr Within the City of San Luis Obispo, a
fraternity or 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 section 17.10.020 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The city
defines a Fraternity/Sorority as:
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. (SLOMC 17.156.014).
In summary, a location meets the definition of a fraternity or sorority when it houses fraternity/sorority
members AND holds a meeting or gathering hosted by a social or educational association.
On January 18th, 2024, 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 (SLO MC §17.10.020):
A. 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 matter of right
MUP The use requires a minor use permit approved by the director, as provided in
Section 17.110.030 (Procedure-Minor Use Permit).
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in Section 17.110.030 (Procedure-Minor Use Permit).
M/A The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor use permit
review, the use may be established on the ground floor.
Corrective Action:
1. Stop all fraternal gatherings, meetings, or activities at this property.
2. Remove any and all fraternal identifying markers from the property such as painted
letters, brandings, or any item(s) similar to that in nature.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) immediately. These
violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Failure to correct the violation(s) as soon as
possible 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 at (805) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAMI SALEM
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Technician & Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
Page 2
Administrative Citation Appeal Form Instructions
Questions about this form or the appeal process should be directed to the City Attorney’s Office
Email: City Attorney@slocity.org, Phone: (805)781-7140
1. Citation Details: Describe the administrative citation received (that you are appealing) with as much detail as possible. The
specific information required by the Municipal Code is listed in the form, but any identifying information you provide will
assist staff to quickly complete the initial intake processing of your request to appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Section 1.24.100(C)(3)(a-b).
2. Appellant Details: Whether cited as an individual, business owner, property/building owner, or are being held financially
responsible as a tenant for a citation issued to your landlord, all contact information you wish to provide to the City should
be entered here. If there is more than one appellant, attach additional pages and provide the contact information for every
appellant. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(1).
3. Citation Issued to a Business: For an appeal of a citation issued directly to a business (e.g. failure to timely renew a business
license), please provide the additional information in part 3 of this form. The Business Name and License number should
be on the renewal notice, administrative citation, or other notifications.
4. Interest in Citation: For an administrative citation issued to an individual, only that specific person may submit an appeal.
Any appeal submitted by a roommate, family member, etc., on behalf of the individual cited, will be rejected. For appeals
issued to a property or building, the owner or their agent may submit an appeal, as well as any tenant who is being held
contractually, financially responsible for the property citation. Any legal representative or other agent of the appellant
should provide their own contact details in part 11 of this form. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(2).
5. Reason for Appeal: Give a brief statement of why you are appealing, the relief or action sought, and why the administrative
citation should be revoked, modified or otherwise set aside. The AMOUNT of the fine cannot be reduced on appeal. Attach
additional pages as necessary, and include any audio, video, photographic, or other supporting evidence you wish to
provide. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(3)(c).
6. Election of Appeal Process: Only one appeal process may be chosen, and once chosen, the election is final. San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(c).
All citations that include a violation of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (building and related codes), even if
other non-Title 15 code violations are also cited, must be appealed to the Construction Board of Appeals. San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(1).
For citations that do not include a violation of Title 15, you must make a choice between:
x Administrative Review Board: If you wish to retain your right to challenge the administrative citation, or any final
city action related to the citation, in court by any writ action, you must appeal to the Administrative Review Board
for a more formal, comprehensive hearing to ensure preparation of an adequate administrative record. Should you
wish to then challenge that board’s decision in court, you will need to file a petition for writ with the Superior Court,
which may require the services of an attorney to prepare, and will require payment of the City’s costs to prepare
the administrative record. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(b).
x Hearing Officer: An expedited, less formal appeal process to a city hearing officer, whose final decision may be
appealed directly to the superior court for de novo review pursuant to California Government Code Section
53069.4. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(a).
For citations that do not include a violation of Title 15, failure to request a hearing before the Administrative Review Board
will result in the appeal being assigned to a Hearing Officer and will constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies
for purposes of any subsequently filed writ action. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(4).
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
March 17th, 2026
Adams Family Investments
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 281 Albert Dr San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-322-009
Code Case #: CODE-000273-2025
Dear Property Owner,
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff has been made aware of violations
of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code located at 281 Albert Dr Within the City of San Luis Obispo, a
fraternity or 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 section 17.10.020 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.281 Albert
Dr has been identified as a fraternity/sorority located within the R-1 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 affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University and where such
an association also holds meetings or gatherings. (SLOMC 17.156.014).
In summary, a location meets the definition of a fraternity or sorority when it houses fraternity/sorority
members AND holds a meeting or gathering hosted by a social or educational association.
On 1/18/2025, 9/27/2025, 1/18/2026, 1/30/2026, & 2/20/2026, 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 (SLO MC §17.10.020):
A. 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 matter of right
MUP The use requires a minor use permit approved by the director, as provided in
Section 17.110.030 (Procedure-Minor Use Permit).
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in Section 17.110.030 (Procedure-Minor Use Permit).
M/A The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor use permit
review, the use may be established on the ground floor.
Corrective Action:
1. Stop all fraternal gatherings, meetings, or activities at this property.
2. Remove any and all fraternal identifying markers from the property such as painted
letters, brandings, or any item(s) similar to that in nature.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) immediately. These
violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Failure to correct the violation(s) as soon as
possible 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 at (805) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAMI SALEM
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Technician & Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2026 3:33 PM
To:Mezzapesa, John
Subject:Re: Fraternity houses were documented by Cal Poly PD
Hi John,
Did you route my request for the code case file for 281 Albert Dr through the Clerk or can you send me
the records directly? I asked you for the info a while back. I need the code enforcement file for 281 Albert
(dating back from our meeting on 11/8/2023 when it was brought to the City's attention that it was an
illegal fraternity house) but never received it from you.
I have been going through records and am absolutely floored to see that Cal Poly was sending the lists to
the City of the dates, times and addresses of all fraternity parties since the 2021-2022 academic year
through at least the end of the 2023-2024 academic year. While I was reporting addresses to you, and
you were saying you couldn't prove they were a fraternity, SLOPD had the lists of all the addresses that I
was telling you about.
In early 2023 when I asked Wallace about the City's law related to fraternities, and about specific
fraternity addresses, she denied knowledge, but some of the addresses I asked her about were on the
lists leading up to that time. She accessed those lists on Monday every week to compare them with the
dispatch log, so she knew about the addresses I asked her about despite what she told me.
I am now going through my emails sent and received, and cross-referencing them with the information
that the City had during those times. There were many misrepresentations that were made to me. It is
deeply frustrating and heartbreaking that the City had the information and could have solved this
problem a long time ago.
Those addresses that you asked Cal Poly to confirm -- they are in the weekly lists sent to SLOPD for the
2023-2024 school year. You didn't need them from Cal Poly because the City already had them the whole
time.
I have sent the info to my attorney and am speaking with the media. Meanwhile, I need that file for 281
Albert that I asked for a while ago. If you routed it through the Clerk, I should have received the file by
now. If not, please forward it to me. I am building a timeline based on the documents, comparing what
was said in emails to what the records show, building the record with documentation.There is a lot more
to the story that I don't want to get into because it goes beyond code enforcement, but it will eventually
come out as I piece all of this together. It is mind boggling and makes me feel very sad about how this
has played out, and that the problem has still not been solved.
Thank you for your help,
Kathie
On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 10:27 PM kathie walker < wrote:
John,
2
I have not heard back with answers to my questions and it's been a while. Would you please send me
the code case file for 281 Albert Drive?
Thank you,
Kathie
On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 11:00 AM kathie walker < wrote:
I haven't heard back so wanted to follow up.
1. Why was the CDD not made aware of the weekly lists of FSL approved events being held in the City,
which were sent to SLOPD by Cal Poly PD? City emails show this was happening before and during our
conversations about enforcement, and the CDD was unaware of the locations.
2. Do you know why those locations were allowed to continually hold events, in violation of the zoning
code? Christine Wallace has repeatedly said, "I'm not code enforcement." as though it excuses the
failure to act on these violations. We want to understand how the City is coordinating at this point to
make some progress.
3. What is the current status of Delta Upsilon's fraternity house at 281 Albert Drive? Have the recent
cases been heard by the Hearing Officer? If so, please provide those records.
The appeal information I received for code violations at 281 Albert Drive is confusing, especially
because there appear to be multiple clerical errors which resulted in refunds to the appellant. It is not
clear what, if any, violations resulted from the ongoing fraternity events at the property. (see attached
files)
4. When you presented the case to the Hearing Officer, did you include the AB 524 information from
Cal Poly that documented this address as a fraternity? Or are you presenting the individual cases as
isolated events? It's important to build a case based on the entire record so the Hearing Officer sees
the pattern and practice.
5. Have you requested event records from Cal Poly for the fraternity for events registered in 2026?
Steve asked for Alpha Epsilon Pi's registration records for 2026 and Cal Poly sent them 10 days later.
(They show seven parties with 100 - 160 people before the re-review hearing.) The registration records
support the DoorList postings and are an important component of building the case to allow the
Hearing Officer to see the whole picture.
Please let me know the answers to my questions. We have been trying to get this issue solved since our
meeting in November 2023 and expected to be further along at this point.
Back in 2024, after Advisory Letters and NOVs were sent to fraternity properties listed on the AB 524
reports, I audited those records and found many addresses were missed, including 281 Albert Drive
and sent a follow-up report (See attached: CDD fraternity action). If the City would have documented
those addresses at that time, then held the property owner responsible for subsequent violations, we
would not be in this situation today. This case is an example and indication of the overall problem and
is the reason this horrible problem has continued to plague our neighborhoods, which continues to the
present.
3
Before our meeting on Friday, I'd like to know the answers to these questions.
Thank you,
Kathie
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of
this picture
from the
Internet. 281 Albert Drive appeal 49 pgs.pdf
To help
protect your
privacy,
Microsoft
Office
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture from the Internet. 281 Albert Drive appeal 53 pgs.pdf
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 4:34 PM kathie walker < wrote:
Hi John,
I'm going through the records produced by the City and have questions, but first I wanted to flag
something that I found. It appears that while CDD staff were looking for evidence that certain
addresses were being used as fraternity houses, SLOPD knew the addresses because Cal Poly PD
was sending lists of the approved FSL events to a SLOPD lieutenant every weekend and those lists
were passed along to Christine Wallace.
Based on notes from my meeting with you and Timmi in November 2023, Timmi was skeptical of using
information from social media, including posts of events made by the fraternities, but was
comfortable relying on Cal Poly's AB 524 reports. However, SLOPD was receiving weekly lists from Cal
Poly PD. I am not sure why this information was not communicated with the CDD.
It's a bit frustrating to read the records and realize the departments were siloed where collaboration
could have rectified the situation much sooner. Instead, the number of fraternity houses exponentially
expanded throughout the neighborhoods and continue to operate today. :(
I've attached one of the emails that shows the lists were being sent from Cal Poly PD to SLOPD. The
most confusing part for me is that Derek Johnson told me in 2022 that fraternities were illegal in all R-1
and R-2 neighborhoods, and needed a permit for R-3 and R-4 neighborhoods. Meanwhile, SLOPD was
fully aware of the addresses where illegal fraternity operations were happening. That doesn't make
sense.
I hope you'll attend the meeting on Friday, April 24 at 3 pm at the CDD with RQN regarding the
upcoming study session on May 26.
-Kathie
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Tuesday, April 28, 2026 10:28 PM
To:Mezzapesa, John
Subject:Re: Fraternity houses were documented by Cal Poly PD
John,
I have not heard back with answers to my questions and it's been a while. Would you please send me the
code case file for 281 Albert Drive?
Thank you,
Kathie
On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 11:00 AM kathie walker < wrote:
I haven't heard back so wanted to follow up.
1. Why was the CDD not made aware of the weekly lists of FSL approved events being held in the City,
which were sent to SLOPD by Cal Poly PD? City emails show this was happening before and during our
conversations about enforcement, and the CDD was unaware of the locations.
2. Do you know why those locations were allowed to continually hold events, in violation of the zoning
code? Christine Wallace has repeatedly said, "I'm not code enforcement." as though it excuses the
failure to act on these violations. We want to understand how the City is coordinating at this point to
make some progress.
3. What is the current status of Delta Upsilon's fraternity house at 281 Albert Drive? Have the recent
cases been heard by the Hearing Officer? If so, please provide those records.
The appeal information I received for code violations at 281 Albert Drive is confusing, especially
because there appear to be multiple clerical errors which resulted in refunds to the appellant. It is not
clear what, if any, violations resulted from the ongoing fraternity events at the property. (see attached
files)
4. When you presented the case to the Hearing Officer, did you include the AB 524 information from Cal
Poly that documented this address as a fraternity? Or are you presenting the individual cases as
isolated events? It's important to build a case based on the entire record so the Hearing Officer sees the
pattern and practice.
5. Have you requested event records from Cal Poly for the fraternity for events registered in 2026?
Steve asked for Alpha Epsilon Pi's registration records for 2026 and Cal Poly sent them 10 days later.
(They show seven parties with 100 - 160 people before the re-review hearing.) The registration records
support the DoorList postings and are an important component of building the case to allow the Hearing
Officer to see the whole picture.
Please let me know the answers to my questions. We have been trying to get this issue solved since our
meeting in November 2023 and expected to be further along at this point.
2
Back in 2024, after Advisory Letters and NOVs were sent to fraternity properties listed on the AB 524
reports, I audited those records and found many addresses were missed, including 281 Albert Drive and
sent a follow-up report (See attached: CDD fraternity action). If the City would have documented those
addresses at that time, then held the property owner responsible for subsequent violations, we would
not be in this situation today. This case is an example and indication of the overall problem and is the
reason this horrible problem has continued to plague our neighborhoods, which continues to the
present.
Before our meeting on Friday, I'd like to know the answers to these questions.
Thank you,
Kathie
To help
protect your privacy,
Microsoft
Office
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture from the Internet. 281 Albert Drive appeal 49 pgs.pdf
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of
this picture
from the
Internet. 281 Albert Drive appeal 53 pgs.pdf
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 4:34 PM kathie walker < wrote:
Hi John,
I'm going through the records produced by the City and have questions, but first I wanted to flag
something that I found. It appears that while CDD staff were looking for evidence that certain
addresses were being used as fraternity houses, SLOPD knew the addresses because Cal Poly PD was
sending lists of the approved FSL events to a SLOPD lieutenant every weekend and those lists were
passed along to Christine Wallace.
Based on notes from my meeting with you and Timmi in November 2023, Timmi was skeptical of using
information from social media, including posts of events made by the fraternities, but was comfortable
relying on Cal Poly's AB 524 reports. However, SLOPD was receiving weekly lists from Cal Poly PD. I am
not sure why this information was not communicated with the CDD.
It's a bit frustrating to read the records and realize the departments were siloed where collaboration
could have rectified the situation much sooner. Instead, the number of fraternity houses exponentially
expanded throughout the neighborhoods and continue to operate today. :(
I've attached one of the emails that shows the lists were being sent from Cal Poly PD to SLOPD. The
most confusing part for me is that Derek Johnson told me in 2022 that fraternities were illegal in all R-1
and R-2 neighborhoods, and needed a permit for R-3 and R-4 neighborhoods. Meanwhile, SLOPD was
fully aware of the addresses where illegal fraternity operations were happening. That doesn't make
sense.
I hope you'll attend the meeting on Friday, April 24 at 3 pm at the CDD with RQN regarding the
upcoming study session on May 26.
3
-Kathie
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Monday, April 27, 2026 10:07 AM
To:Patino, Mallory; Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Cc:Dietrick, Christine; Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Stewjenkins Info
Subject:AEPi Appeal May 19, 2026 - Records/Statement by City Atty Markie Kersten
Attachments:Alpha Epsilon Pi 2025 events.pdf; AEPi event 2-1-2025.pdf; AEPi event 2-8-2025.pdf;
AEPi event 2-14-2025.pdf; AEPi event 2-16-2025.pdf; AEPi event 2-22-2025.pdf; AEPi
event 4-18-2025.pdf; AEPi event 4-19-2025.pdf; AEPi event 10-11-2025.pdf; AEPi event
11-15-2025.pdf; AEPi 1-16 1-17 1-18-2026 winter rush.pdf; AEPi 2-14-2026.pdf; AEPi
2-27-2026.pdf; AEPi 2-21-2026.pdf; AEPi 2-28-2026.pdf; Markie Kersten comments Nov
2024.mp4
Flag Status:Flagged
Mallory and Timmi,
During Alpha Epsilon Pi’s re-review at the Planning Commission on March 11, 2026, the staff report did not include
documentation available to Community Development and Code Enforcement which was pertinent to the hearing, including
code cases and event registration forms completed by Alpha Epsilon Pi, approved by Cal Poly, for multiple events with
160 people held in 2025 and 2026 that has been downloaded by the City, which are violations of conditions of the CUP.
The information is relevant to the appeal before the City Council on May 19, 2026, and should be included in the staff
report.
An appeal from the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission to the City Council is considered de novo . This
means the City Council is not limited to reviewing only the specific issues or evidence raised during the Planning
Commission hearing. Instead, the Council considers the entire case anew, as if it were being heard for the first
time.
I am providing the information below for inclusion in the staff report to ensure that all factual information is available to the
Council.
Additionally, a small correction: the noise citation issued on April 16, 2025, listed 150 people, while the staff report says
100 people.
Code Violations
Code Enforcement records document a May 2025 car wash event involving approximately 50 to 65 persons on site. This
exceeded the occupancy limit under Condition No. 4. Although the event was discontinued after staff contact, it
constituted a violation of the Conditional Use Permit. This incident is not included in the staff report. Notes from the code
enforcement file are below:
2
Code Enforcement issued a violation in December 2025 for overflowing trash, debris, and visible storage at the property.
This violated Condition No. 7, which requires the property to be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. This violation is
not included in the staff report.
3
During AEPi’s re-review before the Planning Commission on November 13, 2024, Markie Kersten (city attorney)
addressed the 25-person limitation and that it is a violation of the CUP to hold any meeting or gathering that
exceeds 25 people without abiding by the terms in the CUP. Here is what she said:
“If they were to not seek a special event permit and hold a fraternity meeting or gathering of over 25, that would
be a violation of their Conditional Use Permit. So, in addition to any potential fines under the municipal code for
noise or unruly gathering, there would also be consequences in terms of their use permit and potentially
review again by staff or the Planning Commission. So, I point that out, just that it’s not simply a “I’d rather pay
the fine.” There’s an additional consequence for them violating their use permit.” (Video of her statement during
the meeting is attached)
Alpha Epsilon Pi’s event registrations for fraternity events confirm many events at 280 California Blvd with expected
attendance that far exceeds 25 people by multiple times, but those violations were not included in the staff report
presented to the Planning Commission on March 11, 2026. They should be included in the appeal hearing on May 19,
2026.
2025 Events
Alpha Epsilon Pi’s event registration forms from Cal Poly’s registration records, downloaded by the City, reflect 21 events
in 2025. Numerous gatherings had attendance ranging from 80 to 160 people in 2025, routinely and significantly
exceeding the 25-person limit for routine gatherings under Condition No. 4. These events are not accounted for in the staff
report as part of the overall pattern of violations. Those that listed expected attendance are listed below. (See
spreadsheet attached, and event registration records, attached)
2/1: 65 people
2/7: unknown attendance
2/8: 160 people
2/12: unknown attendance
2/13: unknown attendance
2/14: 160 people
2/16: 160 people
2/19: unknown attendance
2/22: 160 people
4/3: unknown attendance
4/18: 160 people
4/19: 160 people
5/14: unknown attendance
5/15: unknown attendance
5/22: unknown attendance
5/27: unknown attendance
10/9: unknown attendance
10/11: 80 people
10/16: unknown attendance
11/6: unknown attendance
11/15: 160 people
2026 Events
Alpha Epsilon Pi’s event registration forms from Cal Poly’s registration records, downloaded by the City, reflect ongoing
gatherings with attendance ranging from 100-160 people. Event records show that the fraternity held events on January
16, January 17, and January 18, 2026, with 100 people expected in attendance. These events exceeded the 25-person
limit under Condition No. 4 and occurred after the Planning Commission’s November 13, 2024 re-review and warning.
These events are not included in the staff report.
The staff report states that the applicant was notified on January 29, 2026, that the Conditional Use Permit would be
referred for re-review.
Event records show that the fraternity subsequently held events on February 14, February 21, February 27, and February
28, 2026, with expected attendance ranging from 100 to 160 people. The staff report does not reflect these events or the
context of post-notice activity. (See event registration records, attached)
1/16: 100 people
1/17: 100 people
4
1/18: 100 people
2/14: 150 people
2/21: 100 people
2/27: 160 people
2/28: 100 people
I believe John Mezzapesa has documentation that the events in February were listed on DoorList. I was able to track the
attendance of the party on February 21,2026, and the DoorList app showed 375 people were going to the party.
It would be helpful for you to include screenshots taken by John Mezzapesa of Alpha Epsilon’s parties that were
advertised on DoorList. The language in Alpha Epsilon Pi’s posts on DoorList illustrate that these are not meetings or
gatherings that are limited to 25 people, aside from the registration form that shows they expect 100 – 160 people at each
event. (e.g. "this party is going to be OUT OF THIS WORLD," "This is a party you WON'T FORGET!!!!!!"
A short explanation in the staff report could be included about DoorList, that it is an app that is frequently used by
fraternities and sororities as a way to post events and track guest lists. According to Cal Poly’s Fraternity and Sorority Life
event registration forms (which the City has downloaded) Greek life was trained to use the app at least by spring 2025.
Sigma Nu was unable to figure out how to use the QR check in on Doorlist at an event, so reverted to the spreadsheet to
keep track of attendance, but had a workshop to use how to use the app “so every chapter can be prepared before
upcoming events.”
5
Comments on some of the registration forms direct the fraternity to submit their DoorList guest lists to Cal Poly after the
events. Below is Alpha Epsilon Pi’s event registration form for the Christmas party on 11/15/2025, approved on
11/14/2025 by Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola at the FSL office. In the Comment section she advised Alpha Epsilon Pi to submit
its “Doorlist list” to Cal Poly IFC (reports.cpifc@gmail.com) after the event so that Cal Poly can track the number of guests
at events with alcohol.
There is a lot of information missing from the staff report presented to the Planning Commission, which only referenced
three noise citations and did not fully account for violations of multiple conditions of the CUP, including Condition No. 4
(occupancy limits), Condition No. 7 (property maintenance), Condition No. 9 (noise compliance), and Condition No. 12
(grounds for revocation based on violations). As a result, the record presented does not fully reflect the scope and
frequency of noncompliance documented by evidence in the City’s record. Please include the information provided in the
appeal on May 19, 2026 in support of the City's case.
Thank you, Kathie Walker
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
with 30 people" or "This is a hula-hoop contest." This information is for risk assessment
purposes and will not be advertised.
Rush Events for the fraternity
Do any of the following apply to your event?
(check all that apply)
None of the above or my event does not have any risk
Will there be any collection of funds?
Examples include:
selling items
collecting registration fees
charging admission
selling event sponsorships
No
Will you be playing licensed music or showing a licensed film or video (aka copyrighted
material)?
No
Will alcohol be served or sold at this event?
No
In the event of a medical, fire, or security emergency during my event, I agree to call 911.
Yes
As a member of the organization sponsoring the event described on this document, I take
responsibility to ensure that the activity will abide by all Cal Poly State University and ASI
policies and procedures. I have reviewed the Cal Poly Recognized Student Organization (RSO)
Add an Attachment
POSTCANCEL
Reviewers
Your Review
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Your Vote: None
Level 1 Association - Membership J
Greek Life
Level 2 Association - Form G
Sarah 'Didi' Hawkins
Level 2 Association - Form
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Level 3 Association - Form
Voting Reviewers
Post Event Feedback
Invite
Invite all members of this organization and all co-hosts after event approval
No
Maximum number of RSVP spots allowed
150
Count guests against remaining RSVP spots
No
Limit number of guests per RSVP
No
Maximum number of guests allowed per RSVP
0
Organization Representation enabled
No
Organization Representation required
No
Automatically send Event Feedback email to attendees
Do any of the following apply to your event?
(check all that apply)
None of the above or my event does not have any risk
Will there be any collection of funds?
Examples include:
selling items
collecting registration fees
charging admission
selling event sponsorships
No
Will you be playing licensed music or showing a licensed film or video (aka copyrighted
material)?
No
Will alcohol be served or sold at this event?
Yes
In the event of a medical, fire, or security emergency during my event, I agree to call 911.
Yes
Discussion
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Add an Attachment
Emergency Contact #2
Name:
Emergency Contact #2
Phone:
Is there anyone who will be attending your event who is trained in First Aid CPR/AED?
No
rite a (essa"e
POSTCANCEL
Your Review
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Your Vote: None Ő
Reviewers
Level 1 Association - Membership J
Greek Life
Level 2 Association - Form G
Sarah 'Didi' Hawkins
Level 2 Association - Form
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Level 3 Association - Form
Emily Rutherford
Level 3 Association - Form E
Voting Reviewers
Post Event Feedback
Open
Invite all members of this organization and all co-hosts after event approval
No
Maximum number of RSVP spots allowed
0
Count guests against remaining RSVP spots
No
Limit number of guests per RSVP
No
Maximum number of guests allowed per RSVP
0
Organization Representation enabled
No
Organization Representation required
No
Automatically send Event Feedback email to attendees
Do any of the following apply to your event?
(check all that apply)
None of the above or my event does not have any risk
Will there be any collection of funds?
Examples include:
selling items
collecting registration fees
charging admission
selling event sponsorships
No
Will you be playing licensed music or showing a licensed film or video (aka copyrighted
material)?
No
Will alcohol be served or sold at this event?
No
In the event of a medical, fire, or security emergency during my event, I agree to call 911.
Yes
Add an Attachment
Greek Life
Tue, Feb 24, 2026 1:32 PM
Approved by AEPI president through text
Reply
Wed, Feb 18, 2026 3:06 PM
theme is rave
Reply
-$/ ( .. "
POSTCANCEL
G
A
Reviewers
Your Review
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Your Vote: None
Level 1 Association - Membership Z
Greek Life
Level 2 Association - Form G
Voting Reviewers
Sarah 'Didi' Hawkins
Level 2 Association - Form
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Level 3 Association - Form
Level 2 Association - MembershipC
Non-Voting Reviewers
Where does your event take place?
Off-Campus
Please describe the event's theme and/or activities. Be specific. For example, don't just say
"games." "Instead, state what kind of games. For example: "This is a board game tournament
with 30 people" or "This is a hula-hoop contest." This information is for risk assessment
purposes and will not be advertised.
A space rave at our main fraternity house where invited guests can socialize!
Do any of the following apply to your event?
(check all that apply)
None of the above or my event does not have any risk
Will there be any collection of funds?
Examples include:
selling items
collecting registration fees
charging admission
selling event sponsorships
No
Will you be playing licensed music or showing a licensed film or video (aka copyrighted
material)?
No
Will alcohol be served or sold at this event?
Yes
Discussion
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Add an Attachment
I agree to serve as the main event contact. I will be present at the event and I can be
reached at the following phone number during the event:
(including area code)
Emergency Contact #2
Name:
Emergency Contact #2
Phone:
Is there anyone who will be attending your event who is trained in First Aid CPR/AED?
No
rite a (essa"e
POSTCANCEL
Your Review
Reviewers
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Your Vote: None Ő
Level 1 Association - Membership J
Greek Life
Level 2 Association - Form G
Sarah 'Didi' Hawkins
Level 2 Association - Form
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Level 3 Association - Form
Emily Rutherford
Level 3 Association - Form E
Voting Reviewers
Where does your event take place?
Off-Campus
Please describe the event's theme and/or activities. Be specific. For example, don't just say
"games." "Instead, state what kind of games. For example: "This is a board game tournament
with 30 people" or "This is a hula-hoop contest." This information is for risk assessment
purposes and will not be advertised.
Jewmanji themed party where you can meet the brothers
Do any of the following apply to your event?
(check all that apply)
None of the above or my event does not have any risk
Will there be any collection of funds?
Examples include:
selling items
collecting registration fees
charging admission
selling event sponsorships
No
Will you be playing licensed music or showing a licensed film or video (aka copyrighted
material)?
No
Will alcohol be served or sold at this event?
Yes
Discussion
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Add an Attachment
I agree to serve as the main event contact. I will be present at the event and I can be
reached at the following phone number during the event:
(including area code)
Emergency Contact #2
Name:
Emergency Contact #2
Phone:
Is there anyone who will be attending your event who is trained in First Aid CPR/AED?
No
rite a messa"e
POSTCANCEL
Your Review
Reviewers
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Your Vote: None Ő
Level 1 Association - Membership J
Greek Life
Level 2 Association - Form G
Sarah 'Didi' Hawkins
Level 2 Association - Form
Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola
Level 3 Association - Form
Emily Rutherford
Level 3 Association - Form E
Voting Reviewers
1
From:Belghoul, Amel
Sent:Friday, April 24, 2026 4:00 PM
To:Mezzapesa, John; Salem, Rami
Cc:Code Enforcement
Subject:Notices of hearing / Review on 5/7
Attachments:20260423_NOTICE OF REVIEW - Brown.pdf; 20260423_NOTICE OF HEARING -
Alonso.pdf
Hello,
Notices attached. If you would like to provide clarification regarding the defensibility of the related citations,
please plan to attend the hearing. Sharon will serve as the hearing officer, and she may request your
attendance after reviewing the administrative records.
Please reply to this email to confirm, and I will add you to the hearing calendar.
If you have any questions or need anything further, please let me know.
Thank you,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant I
City Attorney's Office
E ABelghou@slocity.org
T 805.781.7555
City of San Luis Obispo, City Atto rney’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.78 1.7140, slocity.org
Notice of Hearing Officer Review
Page 1
April 23, 2026
Henry Brown
Via First Class Mail and Email to:
Re: Notice of Hearing Officer Review
Administrative Citation #42755
To Lenz Family Trust:
To Henry Brown:
On March 15, 2026, the City of San Luis Obispo received your appeal of the administrative
citation referenced above.
1. In your appeal, you elected to forgo your rightful hearing before a hearing officer in
favor of that hearing officer’s review of your appeal on the record. This review will
take place no sooner than Thursday, May 7, 2026.
2. Hearing Officer or Board. The hearing officer assigned to your appeal is Sharon
Whitney.
3. Addresses for Communication, Notices, or Requests. Any communications,
notices, or requests to the hearing officer, or to the director of the department shall be
addressed as follows:
City Attorney’s Office
Attn: Amel Belghoul
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Email: city_attorney@slocity.org
Additional information regarding the appeal process may be found in Chapter 1.24 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code which is posted at: https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/.
Please note that the administrative record contains a video recording related to the citation
being appealed, which may be reviewed in the entirety by contacting the staff member listed
below and scheduling a time to review the recordings in-person. No copies will be provided,
and no remote viewing will be facilitated. Any request to review the recordings must be
received at least two (2) business days in advance of your hearing date.
Notice of Hearing Officer Review
Page 2
Please call (805)781-7140 or write to city_attorney@slocity.org should you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant
City Attorney’s Office
Enc: Administrative Record
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
January 29, 2025
Lenz Family Trust
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 388 Chaplin Ln San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-322-018
Code Case #: CODE-000022-2025
Dear Property Owner,
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff has been made aware of violations
of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code located at 388 Chaplin Ln Within the City of San Luis Obispo,
a fraternity or 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 section 17.10.020 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The city
defines a Fraternity/Sorority as:
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. (SLOMC 17.156.014).
In summary, a location meets the definition of a fraternity or sorority when it houses fraternity/sorority
members AND holds a meeting or gathering hosted by a social or educational association.
On January 18th, 2024, 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 (SLO MC §17.10.020):
A. 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 matter of right
MUP The use requires a minor use permit approved by the director, as provided in
Section 17.110.030 (Procedure-Minor Use Permit).
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in Section 17.110.030 (Procedure-Minor Use Permit).
M/A The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor use permit
review, the use may be established on the ground floor.
Corrective Action:
1. Stop all fraternal gatherings, meetings, or activities at this property.
2. Remove any and all fraternal identifying markers from the property such as painted
letters, brandings, or any item(s) similar to that in nature.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) immediately. These
violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Failure to correct the violation(s) as soon as
possible 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 at (805) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAMI SALEM
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Technician & Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
January 29, 2025
388 Chaplin Ln
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 388 Chaplin Ln San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-322-018
Code Case #: CODE-000022-2025
Dear Property Owner,
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff has been made aware of violations
of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code located at 388 Chaplin Ln Within the City of San Luis Obispo,
a fraternity or 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 section 17.10.020 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The city
defines a Fraternity/Sorority as:
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. (SLOMC 17.156.014).
In summary, a location meets the definition of a fraternity or sorority when it houses fraternity/sorority
members AND holds a meeting or gathering hosted by a social or educational association.
On January 18th, 2024, 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 (SLO MC §17.10.020):
A. 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 matter of right
MUP The use requires a minor use permit approved by the director, as provided in
Section 17.110.030 (Procedure-Minor Use Permit).
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in Section 17.110.030 (Procedure-Minor Use Permit).
M/A The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor use permit
review, the use may be established on the ground floor.
Corrective Action:
1. Stop all fraternal gatherings, meetings, or activities at this property.
2. Remove any and all fraternal identifying markers from the property such as painted
letters, brandings, or any item(s) similar to that in nature.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) immediately. These
violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Failure to correct the violation(s) as soon as
possible 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 at (805) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAMI SALEM
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Technician & Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
Community Development
91 I Palm Street, San Luis 0bispo, CA 93401 -321 B
805.78 r .7170
slocity.org
Declaration of Service and Posting of Notice
SUBJECT ADDRESS 388 CH N LANE SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93405
CASE NO.: CODE-000274-2025 Citation No.: 42016 Officer:R.M
l/we, the undersigned, declare that at all times herein mentioned, l/we were and now are a duly authorized
employee(s) of the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo, State of California; that
pursuant to Section 1.24.050G of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC), Section 1101.4 of the
Uniform Housing Code, or Section 401.4 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as
adopted by Section 15.02.010 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, l/we deposited iLt a receptacle for the
U.S. postat Service, in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, byl$ regular mail, and/or El certified mail, return
receipt requested the following:
Notice to Gorrect,
Notice of Violation,
Administrative Gitation,
Stop-Work Notice,
Notice of Hearing,
Notice of Proposed Lien,
Notice of Special Assessment
Notifying the owner of the property of the subject address referenced above of violations of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code existing on the property and/or of related abatement proceedings.
The above notice was sent to each person having an interest in the property at their respective addresses as
listed in the Notice, and a copy of the notice was posted at the subject address.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 23'd day of December ,2025, San Luis Obispo, California
Officer or clerk effecting service
(Print Name)(Signature)(Time/date)
Officer effecting service by posting:
A
I
I
Ir
(Print Name ignature (Time/date
919 Palm Slreet, San LUis Obispo, CA 93401 -321B
B05.78r.71 70
sloclty.org
Citation No.: 42016
ADMI N ISTRATIVE CITATION
AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
Community Development
811", Gitation D 2no Citation E t'o Gitation E nooitional / Daily Fines
ADDRESS OF VIOLATION: 388 Chaplin La ne San Luis Obispo,cA e3405 APN: 052-322-018
DATE OF VIOLATION:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
September 26,2025
LENZ FAMILY TRUST
PURSUANT TO GHAPTER 1.24 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE, YOU ARE HEREBY
oRDERED TO |MMED|ATELY CORRECT THE VTOLATION(S) DESCRIBED BELOW AND PAY THE FINE.
YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED TO CEASE THE ACTIVITY GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATION. WHEN
CORRECTIONS ARE COMPLETE PLEASE SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION BY CALLING (805)781.7180. TO
AVOID ADDITIONAL FINES COMPLIANCE MUST BE VERIFIED BY DEPARTMENT STAFF. IF DAILY FINES
APPLY AS NOTED ABOVE, THE FINES SHALL ACCRUE DAILY UNTIL THE VIOLATION(S) ARE
GoRRECTED. FATLURE TO CORRECT THE VTOLATTON(S) WILL RESULT lN THE ISSUANCE OF
ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS AND ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT
ACTION.
Failure to pay the fines may result in the suspension of any pending applications or permits. Unpaid
fines become delinquent after 30 days and are subject to interest accrual of 8o/o per month as contained
in SLOMC 1.24.070 C. The City may pursue all legal, equitable, and administrative remedies for
the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. Delinquent fines will be fonryarded to a collection
agency for payment.
Mail Payments to: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
You may file an APPEAL of this Administrative Citation by submitting a request in writing to the
Hearing Administrator within ten days of the date this Administrative Citation is issued as shown
below. Each responsible party is individually required to file an appeal. FAILURE TO FILE AN
APPEAL WILL WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS CITATION. PIEASE SEE thE AttAChCd
Appeal Form for more information.
MailAppeals to: City of San Luis Obispo,Gity Clerk
is Obispo, CA 93401990 Palm Street,
lssued By : R Salem Title: Code Enforcement Officer
CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION FINE
sloMc s 17.10.020 Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses - Unpermitted Use $1 oo
Amount Due (or subtotal if daily fine)$1 oo
lf Daily Fines apply the TOTAL AMOUNT DUE =
-(no.
days) X subtotal =
RELATED GE CASE:
Signature:
4-2025 DATE CITATION ISSUED:Decembe r 23.2025
TNVOICE (00042016)
FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BILLING CONTACT
Adian and Richard Lenz
INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE INVOICE DUE DATE INVOICE STATUS INVOICE DESCRIPTION
00042016 12t23t2025 01t22t2026 Due NONE
REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME TOTAL
coDE-000274-2025 CE lstAdmin Citation $100.00
388 Chaplin Ln San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 SUBTOTAL $100.00
TOTAL $100.00
December 23, 2025 City of San Luis Obispo Page 1 of 1
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis obispo, CA 93401 -321 I
805.781 .71 70
slocity.org
January 29,2025
Lenz Family Trust
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 388 Chaplin Ln San Luis Obispo,
Code Case #: CODE-000022-2025
Dear Property Owner,
City of San Luis Obispo Community Deve
of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
a fratemity or sorority requires a use permit
the R-l & R-2 zones as described in section 17.10
defines a Fraternity/Sorority as:
In summary, a
members
On January 2024, City of
of the San ispo Mun
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)Alotice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
22-018
has been made aware of violations
Within the City of San Luis Obispo,
R-4 zones and is not allowed within
Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The city
or sorority when it houses fraternity/sorority
social or educational association.
Community Development Department staff noted the
icipal Code or other relevant codes at the above listedfollowing
address:
I I
A.with
regalations specified in the Speciftc Use Regulations Column of Table 2-1. Land uses ate
deftned in Chapter 17.156 (Land IIse Dejinitions). In Table 2-1, symbols shall have these
meanings:
in zones sholl be regulatel! as set forth in Table 2'1; Uses
to subsections@through@of this section and udditional
-qFF
A The use is allowed as matter of risht
MAP The use requires a minor use permit approved by the director, as provided in
Section 17.110.030 Use
CAP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
AS in Section 17.110.030 Use
M/A The use is allowed above the groundfloor only. Subiect to minot use petmit
review, the use may be estahlished on the ground floor.
Corrective Action:
l. Stop all fraternal gatherings, meetings, or activities at this property.
2. Remove any and all fraternal identifying markers from the property such as painted
letters, brandings, or any item(s) similar to that in nature.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted vio s) immediately. These
violation(s) as soon asviolations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Failure to
possible will result in the issuance of an Administrative Citation of FINES in
uncorrected after
or criminal remedies.
Director's this Notice by
submitting it Community
Palm Street, San uis Obispo, CA
be deemed final unless you timely
and would like to thank you for your
and beauty of our community. If you
rsalem@slocity.org.
accordance with SLOMC Chapter 1.24. For Municipal
issuance of an Administrative Citation, the City may seek
Any person having a title interest in the property
completing the enclosed Request for Director's
Development Department via email at
9340l,within five (5) days ofthe date of this
file a Request for Director's Review.
We look forward to working with
efforts to maintain your property
have questions, please contact
Sincerely,
Code
Housing CoordinatorRami
Cc: File
Enclosures:
Enforcement T
for Directors lew
F
or to
This N
CODE CASE ACTIVITY REPORT CODE-000022-2025
FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Address:08/06/2025Closed Date:CompliantStatus:388 Chaplin Ln
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
01/29/2025Opened Date:Rami SalemAssigned ToCode EnforcementCase Type:
Activity Date Created By Activity Type CommentsActivity Name
01/29/2025 Initial inspection failed on 01/18/2025,
observed fraternal unsactioned event at the
property (rush event) resulting in a land use
permit violation.
InspectionRami Salem 01/18/2025
Generated and mailed a notice of violation to
owner's address along with Director's review
form. Generated and mailed a copy of the
NOV to the tenants as well.
Notice of ViolationRami Salem 01/29/2025
02/05/2025 Went and visited property. Spoke with tenants
and fraternity members. Exchanged
information and explained the process of
holding an unsanctioned event in a
non-permitted property and why it is a land
use violation.
MeetingRami Salem 01/31/2025
08/06/2025 I have not observed fraternal activity in this
location for more than 30 consecutive days.
ClosedRami Salem 08/06/2025
Page 1 of 1City of San Luis ObispoMarch 31, 2026
Citation No.: 00042755
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
1st Citation 2nd Citation 3rd Citation Additional / Daily Fines
LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 388 Chaplin Lane, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-322-018
DATE OF VIOLATION: February 6, 2026 & February 21, 2026
NAME: Lenz Family Trust
ADDRESS:
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.24 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE, YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED
TO IMMEDIATELY CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) DESCRIBED BELOW AND PAY THE FINE. YOU ARE
FURTHER ORDERED TO CEASE THE ACTIVITY GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATION. WHEN CORRECTIONS
ARE COMPLETE PLEASE SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION BY CALLING (805)781-7180. TO AVOID ADDITIONAL
FINES COMPLIANCE MUST BE VERIFIED BY DEPARTMENT STAFF. IF DAILY FINES APPLY AS NOTED
ABOVE, THE FINES SHALL ACCRUE DAILY UNTIL THE VIOLATION(S) ARE CORRECTED. FAILURE TO
CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE
CITATIONS AND ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION FINE
MC § 17.10.020 Use Regulations by Zone. Allowed Uses – Unpermited Use $500
MC § 17.10.020 Use Regulations by Zone. Allowed Uses – Unpermited Use $1000
Amount Due $1500
Failure to pay the fines may result in the suspension of any pending applications or permits. Unpaid fines
become delinquent after 30 days and are subject to interest accrual of 8% per month as contained in
SLOMC 1.24.070 C. The City may pursue all legal, equitable, and administrative remedies for
the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. Delinquent fines will be forwarded to a collection agency
for payment.
Mail Payments to: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
You may file an APPEAL of this Administrative Citation by submitting a request in writing to the
Hearing Administrator within ten days of the date this Administrative Citation is issued as shown below.
Each responsible party is individually required to file an appeal. FAILURE TO FILE AN APPEAL
WILL WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS CITATION. Please see the attached Appeal Form
for more information.
Mail Appeals to: City of San Luis Obispo, City Clerk
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Issued By: R. Salem Signature: RAMI SALEM Title: Code Enforcement Officer
RELATED CE CASE: CODE-000274-2025 DATE CITATION ISSUED: March 13, 2026
INVOICE (00042755)
FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BILLING CONTACT
Adian and Richard Lenz
LENZ FAMILY TRUST
INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE INVOICE DUE DATE INVOICE STATUS INVOICE DESCRIPTION
00042755 03/12/2026 04/11/2026 NONEDue
REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME TOTAL
CODE-000274-2025 CE 2nd Admin Citation $500.00
CE 3rd Admin Citation $1,000.00
$1,500.00 SUBTOTAL388 Chaplin Ln San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
TOTAL $1,500.00
Page 1 of 1March 12, 2026 City of San Luis Obispo
Declaration of Service and Posting of Notice
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 388 CHAPLIN LANE SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405
CASE NO.: CODE-000274-2025 Citation No.: 42755 Officer: R. SALEM
I/we, the undersigned, declare that at all times herein mentioned, I/we were and now are a duly authorized
employee(s) of the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo, State of California; that
pursuant to Section 1.24.050G of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC), Section 1101.4 of the
Uniform Housing Code, or Section 401.4 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as
adopted by Section 15.02.010 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I/we deposited in a receptacle for the
U.S. Postal Service, in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, by regular mail, and/or certified mail, return
receipt requested the following:
A Notice to Correct,
Notice of Violation,
Administrative Citation,
Stop-Work Notice,
Notice of Hearing,
Notice of Proposed Lien,
Notice of Special Assessment
Notifying the owner of the property of the subject address referenced above of violations of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code existing on the property and/or of related abatement proceedings.
The above notice was sent to each person having an interest in the property at their respective addresses as
listed in the Notice, and a copy of the notice was posted at the subject address.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 12th day of March , 2026, San Luis Obispo, California
Officer or clerk effecting service by mail:
RAMI SALEM December 23, 2025
(Print Name) (Signature) (Time/date)
Officer effecting service by posting:
(Print Name) (Signature) (Time/date)
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis obispo, CA 93401 -321 I
805.781 .71 70
slocity.org
January 29,2025
Lenz Family Trust
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 388 Chaplin Ln San Luis Obispo,
Code Case #: CODE-000022-2025
Dear Property Owner,
City of San Luis Obispo Community Deve
of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
a fratemity or sorority requires a use permit
the R-l & R-2 zones as described in section 17.10
defines a Fraternity/Sorority as:
In summary, a
members
On January 2024, City of
of the San ispo Mun
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)Alotice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
22-018
has been made aware of violations
Within the City of San Luis Obispo,
R-4 zones and is not allowed within
Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The city
or sorority when it houses fraternity/sorority
social or educational association.
Community Development Department staff noted the
icipal Code or other relevant codes at the above listedfollowing
address:
I I
A.with
regalations specified in the Speciftc Use Regulations Column of Table 2-1. Land uses ate
deftned in Chapter 17.156 (Land IIse Dejinitions). In Table 2-1, symbols shall have these
meanings:
in zones sholl be regulatel! as set forth in Table 2'1; Uses
to subsections@through@of this section and udditional
-qFF
A The use is allowed as matter of risht
MAP The use requires a minor use permit approved by the director, as provided in
Section 17.110.030 Use
CAP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
AS in Section 17.110.030 Use
M/A The use is allowed above the groundfloor only. Subiect to minot use petmit
review, the use may be estahlished on the ground floor.
Corrective Action:
l. Stop all fraternal gatherings, meetings, or activities at this property.
2. Remove any and all fraternal identifying markers from the property such as painted
letters, brandings, or any item(s) similar to that in nature.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted vio s) immediately. These
violation(s) as soon asviolations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Failure to
possible will result in the issuance of an Administrative Citation of FINES in
uncorrected after
or criminal remedies.
Director's this Notice by
submitting it Community
Palm Street, San uis Obispo, CA
be deemed final unless you timely
and would like to thank you for your
and beauty of our community. If you
rsalem@slocity.org.
accordance with SLOMC Chapter 1.24. For Municipal
issuance of an Administrative Citation, the City may seek
Any person having a title interest in the property
completing the enclosed Request for Director's
Development Department via email at
9340l,within five (5) days ofthe date of this
file a Request for Director's Review.
We look forward to working with
efforts to maintain your property
have questions, please contact
Sincerely,
Code
Housing CoordinatorRami
Cc: File
Enclosures:
Enforcement T
for Directors lew
F
or to
This N
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to: City Clerk’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Administrative Citation Appeal Form
Form must be received by the City Clerk within 10 days of date of citation to be considered timely filed.
If no appeal is filed within ten days, the administrative citation shall be deemed final. SLMC§1.24.100(A).
Revised and Published: 7/1/2025
PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS STARTING ON PAGE 2 BEFORE COMPLETING
Address of Citation: 1 Date of Citation:
ADM or Other Cite Number:
Municipal Code Section(s) Cited:
Municipal Code Section(s) Appealed:
2 Appellant Name(s): Appellant Mailing Address(es):
Appellant Phone(s):
Appellant email address(es):
3 If applicable
Business Name: Business License #
4 Appellant Cited As: Mark only one
_____ Individual or Business _____ Owner of property or building _____ Tenant being held financially
responsible for landlord citation
5 Reason for appeal. Attach additional pages as necessary.
6 Election of Appeal Process.
Choose One. Election is final.
7 Appeal Fee. (calculate using worksheet on page 3): $ _______________
_____ Construction Board of Appeals Appeal Fee to be collected when form is submitted. Failure to pay the
appropriate fee may cause your appeal to be rejected. _____ Administrative Review Board
_____ Hearing Officer
Office Use Only
Staff initial for collection of fee _____ Date received ____________
8 In-person Hearing. Optional
I wish to have my appeal heard on the record, so I do not need to attend an in-person hearing. I understand I may submit
evidence in support of my appeal up to ten (10) days in advance of the day of review for my appeal and that I will receive written
notice of when that day of review for my appeal will be.
To waive your right to an in-person hearing, initial here: _______
9 If different that the address listed in #2 above, all future notices from the City relating to this appeal should be mailed to the
following Official Mailing Address:
10 Truth of Appeal.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all of the facts stated in this appeal are true, and
that this appeal form was executed on:
________________________________ ____________________ ______________________________, California
Signature of Appellant or Representative Date of Signature Place of Signature
11 Representative. If applicable, Legal counsel or agent of Appellant
Name and Capacity: Address:
Phone:
Email address:
Page 2
Administrative Citation Appeal Form Instructions
Questions about this form or the appeal process should be directed to the City Attorney’s Office
Email: City_Attorney@slocity.org, Phone: (805)781-7140
1. Citation Details: Describe the administrative citation received (that you are appealing) with as much detail as possible. The
specific information required by the Municipal Code is listed in the form, but any identifying information you provide will
assist staff to quickly complete the initial intake processing of your request to appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Section 1.24.100(C)(3)(a-b).
2. Appellant Details: Whether cited as an individual, business owner, property/building owner, or are being held financially
responsible as a tenant for a citation issued to your landlord, all contact information you wish to provide to the City should
be entered here. If there is more than one appellant, attach additional pages and provide the contact information for every
appellant. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(1).
3. Citation Issued to a Business: For an appeal of a citation issued directly to a business (e.g. failure to timely renew a business
license), please provide the additional information in part 3 of this form . The Business Name and License number should
be on the renewal notice, administrative citation, or other notifications.
4. Interest in Citation: For an administrative citation issued to an individual, only that specific person may submit an appeal.
Any appeal submitted by a roommate, family member, etc., on behalf of the individual cited, will be rejected. For appeals
issued to a property or building, the owner or their agent may submit an appeal, as well as any tenant who is being held
contractually, financially responsible for the property citation. Any legal representative or other agent of the appellant
should provide their own contact details in part 11 of this form. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(2).
5. Reason for Appeal: Give a brief statement of why you are appealing, the relief or action sought, and why the administrative
citation should be revoked, modified or otherwise set aside. The AMOUNT of the fine cannot be reduced on appeal. Attach
additional pages as necessary, and include any audio, video, photographic, or other supporting evidence you wish to
provide. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(3)(c).
6. Election of Appeal Process: Only one appeal process may be chosen, and once chosen, the election is final. San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(c).
All citations that include a violation of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (building and related codes), even if
other non-Title 15 code violations are also cited, must be appealed to th e Construction Board of Appeals. San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(1).
For citations that do not include a violation of Title 15, you must make a choice between:
• Administrative Review Board: If you wish to retain your right to challenge the administrative citation, or any final
city action related to the citation, in court by any writ action, you must appeal to the Administrative Review Board
for a more formal, comprehensive hearing to ensure preparation of an adequate administrative record. Should you
wish to then challenge that board’s decision in court, you will need to file a petition for writ with the Superior Court,
which may require the services of an attorney to prepare, and will require payment of the City’s costs to prepare
the administrative record. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(b).
• Hearing Officer: An expedited, less formal appeal process to a city hearing officer, whose final decision may be
appealed directly to the superior court for de novo review pursuant to California Government Code Section
53069.4. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(a).
For citations that do not include a violation of Title 15, failure to request a hearing before the Administrative Review Board
will result in the appeal being assigned to a Hearing Officer and will constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies
for purposes of any subsequently filed writ action. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(4).
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to:
City Clerk’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Page 3
7. Appeal Fee. Every path of appeal requires payment of a fee due at the time your appeal is submitted. Once your appeal is
determined to be complete, timely and valid, the fee is non-refundable as it is recovery of a percentage of the cost to bring
your appeal to hearing, regardless of the outcome. Fees are adopted by City Council resolution and updated annually.
Use the chart below to properly determine or calculate your appeal fee. If you are appealing for Hearing Officer Review
and cannot determine the amount of your fine(s), please contact the City Attorney’s Office by phone (805)781-7140 or
email city_attorney@slocity.org, and support staff will be able to assist you:
Construction Board of Appeals, Title 15 violations Fees effective 7/1/2025
Minor: related to an Alteration/Addition of an existing Single-Family or Accessory Dwelling Unit
(including duplexes), a demolition permit, or any item permitted under the “Additional Building
Fees” schedule
$636.54
Moderate: related to all other permits that are processed under the alteration/addition work class,
New Single-Family permits (including duplexes), and New Accessory Dwelling Unit permits
$1,139.18
Major: related to anything that doesn’t fall into one of the other two categories $2,011.59
Administrative Review Board $652
Hearing Officer review, capped at $109.18 but could be less depending on the amount of your fine
Amount of fine(s) being appealed:
(1)
25% of fine(s): amount in (1) multiplied by 0.25
(2)
Cost Recovery Appeal Fee Cap: (3) $109.18
Your appeal fee: whichever is less of (2) & (3)
$
Payment by check should be made out to the “City of San Luis Obispo.” Payment by credit card can be facilitated by the
Finance Department1 and should be completed prior to submission of your appeal form, with a copy of the payment receipt
attached to the form. Any appeal received without payment of the proper fee may be rejected.
8. In-Person Hearing : It is your right, no matter which appeal process you choose, to have an in-person hearing for your
appeal. However, you are under no obligation to appear. If you choose, you may elect to have your appeal reviewed on the
record (all the documents, pictures, etc. submitted by yourself or the City). San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.110(F).
This review on the record will occur on or after a certain date and you will receive written notice of the date of review for
your appeal. If you choose to participate in an in-person hearing, you will receive a written notice of hearing. San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.110(B).
9. Official Mailing Address: The Municipal Code requires certain notices be sent via U.S. Mail and so, while courtesy
notifications may be sent via email or to other addresses, you are required to provide one official mailing address for your
appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.100(C)(5).
10. Signature: The step most commonly missed in the appeal process (and the most common reason for rejection of a timely
appeal) is failure to sign the appeal and declare the facts stated in the appeal to be true. The form provides a signature
block for this purpose but if there are multiple appellants, all must sign a declaration. Any additional declarations can be
attached as additional pages. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.100(C)(5).
11. Representative of Appellant: Any legal representative or other agent assisting with the preparation of the appeal or who
intends to appear at the hearing, must provide their contact information and relationship to the appellant.
1 Finance Department staff are available by phone (805)781-7124 and at the public counter, downstairs at City Hall (990 Palm
Street), Monday – Thursday, 8:00am – 4:00pm
CODE CASE ACTIVITY REPORT CODE-000274-2025
FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Address:Closed Date:In ViolationStatus:388 Chaplin Ln
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
10/01/2025Opened Date:Rami SalemAssigned ToCode EnforcementCase Type:
Activity Date Created By Activity Type CommentsActivity Name
10/02/2025 Investigation into RUSH event advertised on
social media associated with the fraternity
Delta Upsilon to occur on 9/26/25. After
inspection of all known locations used as a
fraternity associated with the organization
advertising the event, it was determined that
the event took place at 388 Chaplin. There is
no use permit for this location to operate as a
fraternity. Inspection was completed on
September 26, 2025 at 2:10 PM by Code
Enforcement staff. During inspection several
individuals were observed in the front yard
area. During RUSH events, fraternity members
are known to be near the entrance of a
property to check-in and/or greet prospective
recruits. Additionally, during the event,
several individuals, many wearing name tags
were observed entering the property. Name
tags are known to be utilized by prospective
recruits while attending advertised RUSH
events. Given an event was advertised from
12PM-3PM on 9/26/25 and, the property has
been previously identified to be used as a
fraternity and, the typical RUSH set up/use of
name tags indicative of a RUSH event was
observed, it was determined that the property
was more likely than not being use as a
fraternity during both events.
InspectionJohn Mezzapesa 9/26/2025
12/23/2025 Citation for first violation sent to PO via first
class and certified mail and posted on site.
Sent to current resident via first class mail.
Admin CiteJohn Mezzapesa 12/23/2025
02/10/2026 Research found that an event was advertised
on Doorlist to take place on 2/6/2026,. The
social media post, posted by Delta Upsilon,
included a location for the event (388
Chaplin). Given the social media posts
showed an event occurring at the residence
and the property has been previously
identified to be used as a fraternity it was
determined that the property was more likely
than not being use as a fraternity.
ResearchJohn Mezzapesa 2/6/2026
03/12/2026 Generateed and mailed first class and
certified copies of the administrative citation to
the property and to the current resident(s) as
well posting a hard copy on the property.
3rd Admin CiteRami Salem 03/12/2026
Generateed and mailed first class and
certified copies of the administrative citation to
the property and to the current resident(s) as
well posting a hard copy on the property.
2nd Admin CiteRami Salem 03/12/2026
03/19/2026
Page 1 of 2City of San Luis ObispoMarch 31, 2026
CODE CASE ACTIVITY REPORT (CODE-000274-2025)
Activity Date Created By Activity Type CommentsActivity Name
Research found that an event was advertised
on Doorlist to take place on 2/21/2026,. The
social media post, posted by Delta Upsilon,
included a location for the event (388
Chaplin). Given the social media posts
showed an event occurring at the residence
and the property has been previously
identified to be used as a fraternity it was
determined that the property was more likely
than not being use as a fraternity. The
violation was addressed via issuance of a
fine on citation#42755
ResearchJohn Mezzapesa 2/21/2026
Page 2 of 2City of San Luis ObispoMarch 31, 2026
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - ADDENDUM
Use of Event Management Applications (e.g., “DoorList”) as Evidence
I. PURPOSE
This supplemental information addendum is provided to clarify the evidentiary relevance of event
management applications, including but not limited to “DoorList,” in evaluating whether a property is
being used as a fraternity or sorority as defined by the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC).
This addendum is intended to support the administrative record and provide additional context for
evaluating documented evidence.
II. BACKGROUND
SLOMC Section 17.156.014 defines a fraternity or sorority as a residential use involving both:
1. Occupancy by members of a social or educational association, and
2. The occurrence of meetings or gatherings associated with that organization
While the Municipal Code references “meetings or gatherings,” these terms are not explicitly defined.
As such, the City may apply reasonable interpretation and consider comparable frameworks and
evidence in determining whether organized group activity is occurring at a property (see also
Supplemental information sheet RE: Administrative Citation Appeal Hearing (Unpermitted
Fraternities/Sororities).
III. DESCRIPTION OF EVENT MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS
Event management applications, such as “DoorList,” are digital platforms used to organize and manage
events. Within these platforms, event information is primarily created and controlled by designated
“hosts,” which are often accounts utilizing the organization’s name and identifying Greek symbols
rather than an individual user. These host accounts input key event details, including the date, time,
location, and event description, and manage guest access by issuing invitations or approving attendance.
Guests generally do not create or modify event details, but instead respond to invitations, RSVP, or
receive access credentials (e.g., digital passes or QR codes) for entry. As such, the core event
information reflected in the platform is generated and controlled by the hosting organization.
These applications commonly include the following features:
• Creation of events tied to a specific date, time, and location
• Identification of a host organization or group
• Management of guest lists and invitations
• Controlled entry to the property through digital check-in systems (e.g., QR codes)
• Tracking of attendance and participation
These features reflect a structured and coordinated approach to organizing gatherings.
IV. EVIDENTIARY VALUE
A. Evidence of Intentional Use of Property
An event listing within an application such as DoorList demonstrates that:
• A property is identified as the location of a planned event
• The event is scheduled in advance
• The property is being represented as a venue for organized group activity
B. Evidence of Organizational Association
DoorList event listings typically identify:
• The hosting organization (e.g., fraternity or sorority)
• Individuals responsible for organizing or managing the event
This establishes a direct connection between the organization and the use of the property.
C. Evidence of Structured and Coordinated Activity
DoorList events involve a level of coordination that includes:
• Pre-approved guest lists
• Managed invitations
• Controlled access to the premises
These characteristics are consistent with organized meetings or gatherings rather than incidental
residential activity.
D. Evidence of Operational Control
The use of a guest management system demonstrates that event hosts:
• Control access to the property
• Regulate the number and identity of attendees
• Maintain authority over event operations
This supports a finding that the organization exercises control over the premises during events.
V. RELATIONSHIP TO “SANCTIONED EVENT” CRITERIA
California Education Code Section 66312 defines a “sanctioned event” to include events where an
organization’s name is used to advertise or publicize the event, or where the organization is otherwise
associated with the event.
DoorList event listings typically include:
• Use of the organization’s name
• Identification of a specific location
• Management and control of guest attendance (e.g., invitations, guest lists, and entry approval)
These characteristics are consistent with the state law definition of a sanctioned event and provide a
relevant framework for interpreting “meetings or gatherings” under the SLOMC (see SLOMC
17.04.010(B).)
VI. APPLICATION TO LAND USE DETERMINATION
The presence of a DoorList event associated with a residential property supports a determination that the
property is being used for organized gatherings where:
• The event is tied to a specific address
• The event is associated with a fraternity or sorority
• The event reflects structured planning and coordination
Even in the absence of direct observation, such evidence demonstrates that the property is being used, or
intended to be used, as a location for organizational gatherings.
VII. LIMITATIONS AND TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE
A single DoorList event, standing alone, may not establish an ongoing pattern of use. However, it
constitutes evidence of organized activity at a property.
This evidence should be evaluated within the totality of the circumstances, which may include:
• Inspection observations
• Additional event postings
• Repeated use of the property for fraternity or sorority-related events over time
• Other corroborating information
VIII. REASONABLE INFERENCES
Based on the structured nature of DoorList events, it is reasonable to infer that:
• The organization has access to and operational control over the property
• The property functions as a location for organized gatherings
• Individuals affiliated with the organization are residing at or operating from the property, or
otherwise maintaining ongoing control of the site
Such inferences are consistent with standard land use analysis and do not require direct confirmation of
residency in all cases.
IX. CONCLUSION
Event management applications such as DoorList provide reliable evidence of organized fraternity or
sorority activity at a specific property. The structured nature of these platforms—including event
creation, guest management, and controlled entry—demonstrates a level of coordination consistent with
“meetings or gatherings” under the SLOMC.
When evaluated as part of the totality of the evidence, DoorList event records support a determination
that a property is more likely than not being used for fraternity or sorority purposes and may be in
violation of applicable zoning regulations where such use is not permitted or has not been approved
through a Conditional Use Permit.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SHEET
Administrative Citation Appeal Hearing (Unpermitted Fraternities/Sororities)
I. PURPOSE OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
This supplemental information is provided to clarify the evidentiary and legal basis for determining that
the subject property was being used as a fraternity or sorority, as defined by the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (SLOMC), and therefore constitutes a prohibited or unpermitted land use in the
applicable zoning district.
Because the SLOMC definition of a fraternity/sorority includes the occurrence of “meetings or
gatherings,” but does not further define those terms, this document provides an interpretive framework
supported by the City’s Zoning Regulations, observed evidence, and relevant provisions of California
Education Code.
II. APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS
A. Use Regulations by Zone
Pursuant to SLOMC Section 17.10.020, fraternities and sororities:
• Require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the R-3 and R-4 zones
• Are not permitted in R-1 and R-2 zones
Any use not expressly allowed within a zoning district is prohibited (SLOMC 17.10.020(B).)
B. Definition of Fraternity/Sorority
SLOMC Section 17.156.014 defines a fraternity or sorority as:
A residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational
association affiliated and in good standing with California Polytechnic State University, and
where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings.
Accordingly, a property meets this definition when both of the following are present:
1. Residential occupancy by members of the organization, and
2. Meetings or gatherings conducted by the organization
C. Operational Characteristics
SLOMC Section 17.86.130 further regulates fraternities and sororities and explicitly contemplates:
• Limits on number of persons during routine meetings and gatherings
• Requirement for responsible persons during events
These provisions confirm that organized group events are a defining and regulated component of
fraternity/sorority land use.
III. AUTHORITY FOR INTERPRETATION OF UNDEFINED TERMS
Chapter 17.04 of the City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations establishes rules and procedures for
interpreting zoning provisions, including the classification of uses that are not specifically defined, and
SLOMC Section 17.10.020 further provides that where an activity is not explicitly defined in the Zoning
Code, the City may assign the activity to a substantially similar classification.
Because the terms “meetings” and “gatherings” are not defined in the Municipal Code, the City may rely
on relevant regulatory frameworks, including the California Education Code, to interpret whether such
activities are occurring.
IV. EDUCATION CODE GUIDANCE – “SANCTIONED EVENT”
California Education Code Section 66312 (AB 524) defines a “sanctioned event” in the
fraternity/sorority context as an event where one or more of the following occurs:
• The event is recognized by the institution as affiliated with a fraternity or sorority
• The organization’s name is used to advertise or publicize the event
• The organization’s name is displayed at the event
• Organization funds are used for event-related expenses
• The organization receives proceeds from the event
Notably, the use of an organization’s name to advertise or publicize an event is, in itself, a determinative
characteristic of a sanctioned fraternity or sorority event.
V. EVIDENTIARY BASIS AND DOCUMENTATION
The City’s determination that an event occurred is based on a combination of direct observations,
documentary evidence, and reasonable inferences drawn from the totality of the circumstances.
Evidence may include, but is not limited to:
A. Inspection Observations
• Date, time, and location of inspection(s)
• Number of individuals observed on site
• Nature of activity (e.g., organized gathering, coordinated entry, amplified music)
• Presence of event/organization-related indicators (e.g., lighting, signage, security, crowd pattern)
B. Social Media and Publicly Available Information
• Posts advertising events at the subject property
• Identification of an organization associated with the event
• Date, time, and location of advertised gatherings
• Photos or videos depicting the property or event-related activity
C. Correlation of Evidence
• Temporal alignment between inspections and advertised events (when available) (e.g., Event
advertised at 1PM on March 3rd and a gathering is observed at the same date and time)
• Repeated use of the same address by an organization
• Consistency between observed conditions and promoted activities (e.g., football game is
advertised and active football game is observed)
VI. INTERPRETATION OF “MEETINGS OR GATHERINGS”
A. Identification of Events as “Meetings or Gatherings
California Education Code Section 66312 identifies fraternity and sorority activities as “events,”
including those that are organized, promoted, or associated with a specific organization. Pursuant to
SLOMC Section 17.04.010, which allows for the interpretation of undefined terms using relevant
regulatory frameworks, the City may rely on this characterization when interpreting “meetings or
gatherings” under the Municipal Code.
Events identified under the Education Code typically include characteristics such as:
• Being organized or promoted by the association
• Reflecting coordinated group activity
• Demonstrating use of the property beyond typical residential living
• Establishing the presence of an identifiable organization operating at the site
B. Role of Advertised Events
The advertisement of an event by a fraternity or sorority that includes a specific date, time, and
address demonstrates that the property is being used, or intended to be used, for organizational
gatherings associated with that group.
Under California Education Code Section 66312, the use of an organization’s name to advertise
or publicize an event is itself a determinative characteristic of a sanctioned event.
While direct observation of the event may not always be available, the public promotion of such
events at a specific residential property establishes that the site functions as a location for
organized gatherings.
Evidence of advertised events alone may not be dispositive; however, when such advertisements
are repeated, corroborated by independent sources (e.g., social media posts, third-party reports,
or platform-based event listings), or reasonably linked to staff observations at the property, they
provide evidence of “meetings or gatherings” as required under the SLOMC’s definition of a
fraternity or sorority.
VII. REASONABLE INFERENCES REGARDING ORGANIZATIONAL USE
A. Organizational Control and Use of Property
Where an organization advertises events at a specific address, it is reasonable to conclude that:
• The organization exercises control, access, or authority over the property
• The property is used as a central location for group activities
• The use is not incidental, but part of a pattern of organized activity
B. Inference of Residential Component
Direct confirmation of residency or membership affiliation is not always available; however,
land use determinations may rely on reasonable inferences supported by evidence.
Where an organization repeatedly promotes and utilizes a specific residential property for
gatherings, it is reasonable to conclude that:
• Members of the organization are residing at or operating from the property, or
• The property functions as a de facto chapter house or residence
This inference is supported by the operational characteristics of fraternity and sorority
organizations, which commonly use residential properties under member control for both living
and organizational activities.
VIII. TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD
The determination that a property is operating as a fraternity or sorority use is not based on any
single piece of evidence, but rather on the totality of the evidence, including:
• Observed on-site activity
• Documented and advertised events
• Repetition and pattern of use
• Organizational association with the property
When considered together, these factors provide evidence that the property satisfies both elements of
the SLOMC definition:
1. Residential use by members, and
2. Meetings or gatherings conducted by the organization
IX. CONCLUSION
The City’s Zoning Regulations authorize interpretation of undefined terms and classification of
land uses based on substantial similarity. The Education Code definition of a “sanctioned event”
provides a clear and appropriate framework for identifying fraternity or sorority-related
gatherings.
Evidence including advertised events, observed activity, and patterns of use demonstrates that
the subject property functions as a location for organized fraternity or sorority gatherings. When
combined with reasonable inferences regarding residential use, the totality of the evidence
supports the determination that the property was operating as a fraternity or sorority use as
defined by the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Accordingly, the use constitutes a violation of SLOMC Section 17.10.020 where such use is not
allowed or has not been approved through a Conditional Use Permit.
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to: City Clerk’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Administrative Citation Appeal Form
Form must be received by the City Clerk within 10 days of date of citation to be considered timely filed.
If no appeal is filed within ten days, the administrative citation shall be deemed final. SLMC§1.24.100(A).
Revised and Published: 7/1/2025
PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS STARTING ON PAGE 2 B EFORE COMPLETING
Address of Citation: 1 Date of Citation:
ADM or Other Cite Number:
Municipal Code Section(s) Cited:
Municipal Code Section(s) Appealed:
2 Appellant Name(s): Appellant Mailing Address(es):
Appellant Phone(s):
Appellant email address(es):
3 If applicable
Business Name: Business License #
4 Appellant Cited As: Mark only one
_____ Individual or Business _____ Owner of property or building _____ Tenant being held financially
responsible for landlord citation
5 Reason for appeal. Attach additional pages as necessary.
6 Election of Appeal Process.
Choose One. Election is final.
7 Appeal Fee. (calculate using worksheet on page 3): $ _______________
_____ Construction Board of Appeals Appeal Fee to be collected when form is submitted. Failure to pay the
appropriate fee may cause your appeal to be rejected. _____ Administrative Review Board
_____ Hearing Officer Office Use Only
Staff initial for collection of fee __AB__ Date received _3/23/26______
8 In-person Hearing. Optional
I wish to have my appeal heard on the record, so I do not need to attend an in-person hearing. I understand I may submit
evidence in support of my appeal up to ten (10) days in advance of the day of review for my appeal and that I will receive written
notice of when that day of review for my appeal will be.
To waive your right to an in -person hearing, initial here: _______
9 If different that the address listed in #2 above, all future notices from the City relating to this appeal should be mailed to the
following Official Mailing Address:
10 Truth of Appeal.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all of the facts stated in this appeal are true, and
that this appeal form was executed on:
________________________________ ____________________ ______________________________, California
Signature of Appellant or Representative Date of Signature Place of Signature
11 Representative. If applicable, Legal counsel or agent of Appellant
Name and Capacity: Address:
Phone:
Email address:
(
Henry Brown
2/21/26
00042755
17.10.20
17.10.20
109.18
03/15/26
See page 2
388 Chaplin ln. San Luis
Obispo, CA 93401
I would like to note that the citation provides only a conclusory statement of “unpermitted use” without identifying any specific conduct, activity, or factual
basis demonstrating that a prohibited use occurred on the date listed. The City has not provided evidence describing what activity allegedly took place,
whether this evidence is conclusive, or how it was observed.
Also, The property in question is residential in nature. The Municipal Code permits residential occupancy and incidental social use, and the citations do not
establish that any activity exceeded what is ordinarily allowed in a residential setting.
To the extent the City relies on online event listings or promotional materials, such materials do not establish that any event actually occurred at the cited
location on the specified date. Events are frequently modified, relocated, or cancelled, and listings do not reflect actual on-site activity. The City must
demonstrate what occurred at each property on each cited date and how such activity constituted a prohibited land use, which has not been shown.
Consequently, the order to “cease the activity” is vague and fails to provide clear guidance as to what conduct is prohibited, making compliance difficult. In
light of this information, I respectfully request that the citation be overturned.
Page 2
Administrative Citation Appeal Form Instructions
Questions about this form or the appeal process should be directed to the City Attorney’s Office
Email: City_Attorney@slocity.org, Phone: (805)781-7140
1. Citation Details: Describe the administrative citation received (that you are appealing) with as much detail as possible. The
specific information required by the Municipal Code is listed in the form, but any identifying information you provide will
assist staff to quickly complete the initial intake processing of your request to appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Section 1.24.100(C)(3)(a-b).
2. Appellant Details: Whether cited as an individual, business owner, property/building owner, or are being held financially
responsible as a tenant for a citation issued to your landlord, all contact information you wish to provide to the City should
be entered here. If there is more than one appellant, attach additional pages and provide the contact information for every
appellant. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(1).
3. Citation Issued to a Business: For an appeal of a citation issued directly to a business (e.g. failure to timely renew a business
license), please provide the additional information in part 3 of this form. The Business Name and License number should
be on the renewal notice, administrative citation, or other notifications.
4. Interest in Citation: For an administrative citation issued to an individual, only that specific person may submit an appeal.
Any appeal submitted by a roommate, family member, etc., on behalf of the individual cited, will be rejected. For appeals
issued to a property or building, the owner or their agent may submit an appeal, as well as any tenant who is being held
contractually, financially responsible for the property citation. Any legal representative or other agent of the appellant
should provide their own contact details in part 11 of this form. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(2).
5. Reason for Appeal: Give a brief statement of why you are appealing, the relief or action sought, and why the administrative
citation should be revoked, modified or otherwise set aside. The AMOUNT of the fine cannot be reduced on appeal. Attach
additional pages as necessary, and include any audio, video, photographic, or other supporting evidence you wish to
provide. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(3)(c).
6. Election of Appeal Process: Only one appeal process may be chosen, and once chosen, the election is final. San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(c).
All citations that include a violation of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (building and related codes), even if
other non-Title 15 code violations are also cited, must be appealed to th e Construction Board of Appeals. San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(1).
For citations that do not include a violation of Title 15, you must make a choice between:
• Administrative Review Board: If you wish to retain your right to challenge the administrative citation, or any final
city action related to the citation, in court by any writ action, you must appeal to the Administrative Review Board
for a more formal, comprehensive hearing to ensure preparation of an adequate administrative record. Should you
wish to then challenge that board’s decision in court, you will need to file a petition for writ with the Superior Court,
which may require the services of an attorney to prepare, and will require payment of the City’s costs to prepare
the administrative record. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(b).
• Hearing Officer: An expedited, less formal appeal process to a city hearing officer, whose final decision may be
appealed directly to the superior court for de novo review pursuant to California Government Code Section
53069.4. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(a).
For citations that do not include a violation of Title 15, failure to request a hearing before the Administrative Review Board
will result in the appeal being assigned to a Hearing Officer and will constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies
for purposes of any subsequently filed writ action. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(4).
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to:
City Clerk’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Page 3
7. Appeal Fee. Every path of appeal requires payment of a fee due at the time your appeal is submitted. Once your appeal is
determined to be complete, timely and valid, the fee is non-refundable as it is recovery of a percentage of the cost to bring
your appeal to hearing, regardless of the outcome. Fees are adopted by City Council resolution and updated annually.
Use the chart below to properly determine or calculate your appeal fee. If you are appealing for Hearing Officer Review
and cannot determine the amount of your fine(s), please contact the City Attorney’s Office by phone (805)781-7140 or
email city_attorney@slocity.org, and support staff will be able to assist you:
Construction Board of Appeals, Title 15 violations Fees effective 7/1/2025
Minor: related to an Alteration/Addition of an existing Single-Family or Accessory Dwelling Unit
(including duplexes), a demolition permit, or any item permitted under the “Additional Building
Fees” schedule
$636.54
Moderate: related to all other permits that are processed under the alteration/addition work class,
New Single-Family permits (including duplexes), and New Accessory Dwelling Unit permits
$1,139.18
Major: related to anything that doesn’t fall into one of the other two categories $2,011.59
Administrative Review Board $652
Hearing Officer review, capped at $109.18 but could be less depending on the amount of your fine
Amount of fine(s) being appealed:
(1)
25% of fine(s): amount in (1) multiplied by 0.25
(2)
Cost Recovery Appeal Fee Cap: (3) $109.18
Your appeal fee: whichever is less of (2) & (3)
$
Payment by check should be made out to the “City of San Luis Obispo.” Payment by credit card can be facilitated by the
Finance Department 1 and should be completed prior to submission of your appeal form, with a copy of the payment receipt
attached to the form. Any appeal received without payment of the proper fee may be rejected.
8. In-Person Hearing: It is your right, no matter which appeal process you choose, to have an in-person hearing for your
appeal. However, you are under no obligation to appear. If you choose, you may elect to have your appeal reviewed on the
record (all the documents, pictures, etc. submitted by yourself or the City). San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.110(F).
This review on the record will occur on or after a certain date and you will receive written notice of the date of review for
your appeal. If you choose to participate in an in-person hearing, you will receive a written notice of hearing. San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.110(B).
9. Official Mailing Address: The Municipal Code requires certain notices be sent via U.S. Mail and so, while courtesy
notifications may be sent via email or to other addresses, you are required to provide one official mailing address for your
appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.100(C)(5).
10. Signature: The step most commonly missed in the appeal process (and the most common reason for rejection of a timely
appeal) is failure to sign the appeal and declare the facts stated in the appeal to be true. The form provides a signature
block for this purpose but if there are multiple appellants, all must sign a declaration. Any additional declarations can be
attached as additional pages. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.100(C)(5).
11. Representative of Appellant: Any legal representative or other agent assisting with the preparation of the appeal or who
intends to appear at the hearing, must provide their contact information and relationship to the appellant.
1 Finance Department staff are available by phone (805)781-7124 and at the public counter, downstairs at City Hall (990 Palm
Street), Monday – Thursday, 8:00am – 4:00pm
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to: City Clerk’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Administrative Citation Appeal Form
Form must be received by the City Clerk within 10 days of date of citation to be considered timely filed.
If no appeal is filed within ten days, the administrative citation shall be deemed final. SLMC§1.24.100(A).
Revised and Published: 7/1/2025
PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS STARTING ON PAGE 2 B EFORE COMPLETING
Address of Citation: 1 Date of Citation:
ADM or Other Cite Number:
Municipal Code Section(s) Cited:
Municipal Code Section(s) Appealed:
2 Appellant Name(s): Appellant Mailing Address(es):
Appellant Phone(s):
Appellant email address(es):
3 If applicable
Business Name: Business License #
4 Appellant Cited As: Mark only one
_____ Individual or Business _____ Owner of property or building _____ Tenant being held financially
responsible for landlord citation
5 Reason for appeal. Attach additional pages as necessary.
6 Election of Appeal Process.
Choose One. Election is final.
7 Appeal Fee. (calculate using worksheet on page 3): $ _______________
_____ Construction Board of Appeals Appeal Fee to be collected when form is submitted. Failure to pay the
appropriate fee may cause your appeal to be rejected. _____ Administrative Review Board
_____ Hearing Officer Office Use Only
Staff initial for collection of fee _AB__ Date received __3/23/26___
8 In-person Hearing. Optional
I wish to have my appeal heard on the record, so I do not need to attend an in-person hearing. I understand I may submit
evidence in support of my appeal up to ten (10) days in advance of the day of review for my appeal and that I will receive written
notice of when that day of review for my appeal will be.
To waive your right to an in -person hearing, initial here: _______
9 If different that the address listed in #2 above, all future notices from the City relating to this appeal should be mailed to the
following Official Mailing Address:
10 Truth of Appeal.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all of the facts stated in this appeal are true, and
that this appeal form was executed on:
________________________________ ____________________ ______________________________, California
Signature of Appellant or Representative Date of Signature Place of Signature
11 Representative. If applicable, Legal counsel or agent of Appellant
Name and Capacity: Address:
Phone:
Email address:
(
Henry Brown
2/6/26
00042755
17.10.20
17.10.20
109.18
03/15/26
See page 2
388 Chaplin ln. San Luis
Obispo, CA 93401
I would like to note that the citation provides only a conclusory statement of “unpermitted use” without identifying any specific conduct,
activity, or factual basis demonstrating that a prohibited use occurred on the date listed. The City has not provided evidence describing
what activity allegedly took place, whether this evidence is conclusive, or how it was observed.
Also, The property in question is residential in nature. The Municipal Code permits residential occupancy and incidental social use, and the
citations do not establish that any activity exceeded what is ordinarily allowed in a residential setting.
To the extent the City relies on online event listings or promotional materials, such materials do not establish that any event actually
occurred at the cited location on the specified date. Events are frequently modified, relocated, or cancelled, and listings do not reflect
actual on-site activity. The City must demonstrate what occurred at each property on each cited date and how such activity constituted a
prohibited land use, which has not been shown. Consequently, the order to “cease the activity” is vague and fails to provide clear guidance
as to what conduct is prohibited, making compliance difficult. In light of this information, I respectfully request that the citation be
overturned.
Page 2
Administrative Citation Appeal Form Instructions
Questions about this form or the appeal process should be directed to the City Attorney’s Office
Email: City_Attorney@slocity.org, Phone: (805)781-7140
1.Citation Details: Describe the administrative citation received (that you are appealing) with as much detail as possible. The
specific information required by the Municipal Code is listed in the form, but any identifying information you provide will
assist staff to quickly complete the initial intake processing of your request to appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Section 1.24.100(C)(3)(a-b).
2.Appellant Details: Whether cited as an individual, business owner, property/building owner, or are being held financially
responsible as a tenant for a citation issued to your landlord, all contact information you wish to provide to the City should
be entered here. If there is more than one appellant, attach additional pages and provide the contact information for every
appellant. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(1).
3.Citation Issued to a Business: For an appeal of a citation issued directly to a business (e.g. failure to timely renew a business
license), please provide the additional information in part 3 of this form. The Business Name and License number should
be on the renewal notice, administrative citation, or other notifications.
4.Interest in Citation: For an administrative citation issued to an individual, only that specific person may submit an appeal.
Any appeal submitted by a roommate, family member, etc., on behalf of the individual cited, will be rejected. For appeals
issued to a property or building, the owner or their agent may submit an appeal, as well as any tenant who is being held
contractually, financially responsible for the property citation. Any legal representative or other agent of the appellant
should provide their own contact details in part 11 of this form. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(2).
5.Reason for Appeal: Give a brief statement of why you are appealing, the relief or action sought, and why the administrative
citation should be revoked, modified or otherwise set aside. The AMOUNT of the fine cannot be reduced on appeal. Attach
additional pages as necessary, and include any audio, video, photographic, or other supporting evidence you wish to
provide. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(3)(c).
6.Election of Appeal Process: Only one appeal process may be chosen, and once chosen, the election is final. San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(c).
All citations that include a violation of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (building and related codes), even if
other non-Title 15 code violations are also cited, must be appealed to th e Construction Board of Appeals. San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(1).
For citations that do not include a violation of Title 15, you must make a choice between:
•Administrative Review Board: If you wish to retain your right to challenge the administrative citation, or any final
city action related to the citation, in court by any writ action, you must appeal to the Administrative Review Board
for a more formal, comprehensive hearing to ensure preparation of an adequate administrative record. Should you
wish to then challenge that board’s decision in court, you will need to file a petition for writ with the Superior Court,
which may require the services of an attorney to prepare, and will require payment of the City’s costs to prepare
the administrative record. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(b).
•Hearing Officer: An expedited, less formal appeal process to a city hearing officer, whose final decision may be
appealed directly to the superior court for de novo review pursuant to California Government Code Section
53069.4. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(a).
For citations that do not include a violation of Title 15, failure to request a hearing before the Administrative Review Board
will result in the appeal being assigned to a Hearing Officer and will constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies
for purposes of any subsequently filed writ action. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(4).
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to:
City Clerk’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Page 3
7.Appeal Fee. Every path of appeal requires payment of a fee due at the time your appeal is submitted. Once your appeal is
determined to be complete, timely and valid, the fee is non-refundable as it is recovery of a percentage of the cost to bring
your appeal to hearing, regardless of the outcome. Fees are adopted by City Council resolution and updated annually.
Use the chart below to properly determine or calculate your appeal fee. If you are appealing for Hearing Officer Review
and cannot determine the amount of your fine(s), please contact the City Attorney’s Office by phone (805)781-7140 or
email city_attorney@slocity.org, and support staff will be able to assist you:
Construction Board of Appeals, Title 15 violations Fees effective 7/1/2025
Minor: related to an Alteration/Addition of an existing Single-Family or Accessory Dwelling Unit
(including duplexes), a demolition permit, or any item permitted under the “Additional Building
Fees” schedule
$636.54
Moderate: related to all other permits that are processed under the alteration/addition work class,
New Single-Family permits (including duplexes), and New Accessory Dwelling Unit permits
$1,139.18
Major: related to anything that doesn’t fall into one of the other two categories $2,011.59
Administrative Review Board $652
Hearing Officer review, capped at $109.18 but could be less depending on the amount of your fine
Amount of fine(s) being appealed: (1)
25% of fine(s): amount in (1) multiplied by 0.25 (2)
Cost Recovery Appeal Fee Cap: (3)$109.18
Your appeal fee: whichever is less of (2) & (3) $
Payment by check should be made out to the “City of San Luis Obispo.” Payment by credit card can be facilitated by the
Finance Department 1 and should be completed prior to submission of your appeal form, with a copy of the payment receipt
attached to the form. Any appeal received without payment of the proper fee may be rejected.
8.In-Person Hearing: It is your right, no matter which appeal process you choose, to have an in-person hearing for your
appeal. However, you are under no obligation to appear. If you choose, you may elect to have your appeal reviewed on the
record (all the documents, pictures, etc. submitted by yourself or the City). San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.110(F).
This review on the record will occur on or after a certain date and you will receive written notice of the date of review for
your appeal. If you choose to participate in an in-person hearing, you will receive a written notice of hearing. San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.110(B).
9.Official Mailing Address: The Municipal Code requires certain notices be sent via U.S. Mail and so, while courtesy
notifications may be sent via email or to other addresses, you are required to provide one official mailing address for your
appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.100(C)(5).
10.Signature: The step most commonly missed in the appeal process (and the most common reason for rejection of a timely
appeal) is failure to sign the appeal and declare the facts stated in the appeal to be true. The form provides a signature
block for this purpose but if there are multiple appellants, all must sign a declaration. Any additional declarations can be
attached as additional pages. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.100(C)(5).
11.Representative of Appellant: Any legal representative or other agent assisting with the preparation of the appeal or who
intends to appear at the hearing, must provide their contact information and relationship to the appellant.
1 Finance Department staff are available by phone (805)781-7124 and at the public counter, downstairs at City Hall (990 Palm
Street), Monday – Thursday, 8:00am – 4:00pm
City of San Luis Obispo Finance
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7124 www.slocity.org
Thank you for your payment.
Have a nice day!
Monday Mar 23 2026 11:02:18 AM
Admin Citation Appeal Fee (ACAF)
HENRY BROWN - 388 CHAPLIN CDD CIT 109.18
__________________________________________
Total 109.18
Credit 109.18
Received From: HENRY BROWN - 388 CHAPLIN
CDD CITATION - CODE-000274-2025
Receipt #: finance-03232026-4
Cashier: Maryanna Espejo-Moses
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VISA ************
Entry Method: MANUAL
Date: 03/23/26 Time: 10:03:24
Reference: q-3BMBC3MHr7KpwJjq4GbaA4nVwdF
Auth Code: 067654
Approved - Thank You
Merchant Id: CITYOSANL2GB
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TOTAL USD $ 109.18
I AGREE TO PAY THE ABOVE AMOUNT
ACCORDING TO THE CARD ISSUER AGREEMENT
(MERCHANT AGREEMENT IF CREDIT VOUCHER)
x_________________________________________
Cardholder Signature
City Copy
City of San Luis Obispo Finance
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7124 www.slocity.org
Thank you for your payment.
Have a nice day!
Monday Mar 23 2026 11:02:18 AM
Admin Citation Appeal Fee (ACAF)
HENRY BROWN - 388 CHAPLIN CDD CIT 109.18
__________________________________________
Total 109.18
Credit 109.18
Received From: HENRY BROWN - 388 CHAPLIN
CDD CITATION - CODE-000274-2025
Receipt #: finance-03232026-4
Cashier: Maryanna Espejo-Moses
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VISA ************
Entry Method: MANUAL
Date: 03/23/26 Time: 10:03:24
Reference: q-3BMBC3MHr7KpwJjq4GbaA4nVwdF
Auth Code: 067654
Approved - Thank You
Merchant Id: CITYOSANL2GB
Customer Copy
PROOF OF SERVICE
- 1 -
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
I am employed in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. I am over the age of
18, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California 93401.
On April 23, 2026, I caused the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REVIEW to be served on the interested parties in this action by
placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes, addressed as follows:
Henry Brown
Email:
[X] By United States Mail: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope addressed as
indicated above. I am readily familiar with the office’s practice of collection and
processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same
day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served,
service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
[X] Courtesy Copy by E-mail: I caused this document to be transmitted via e-mail to the e-
mail address listed above.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 23, 2026, at San Luis Obispo, California.
_____________________________
Amel Belghoul
City of San Luis Obispo, City Atto rney’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.78 1.7140, slocity.org
Notice of In-Person Hearing
Page 1
April 23, 2026
Dominic Alonso
501 Kentucky St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Via First Class Mail and Email to:
Re: Notice of In-Person Hearing
Administrative Citation #42756
To Dominic Alonso:
On March 20, 2026, the City of San Luis Obispo received your appeal of the administrative
citation referenced above.
1.Hearing Date, Time, and Place. Your hearing on the appeal has been set for:
May 7, 202 3:00 PM
Council Hearing Room. San Luis Obispo City Hall
990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
The hearing may be continued to a different date for good cause, but not to
accommodate an academic schedule. Such a request to continue, and the reasons you
feel constitute good cause, must be submitted in writing and received by the hearing
officer or the director of the department that issued the citation within 5 days of the
date of this notice.
2.Hearing Officer or Board. The hearing officer assigned to your appeal is Sharon
Whitney.
3.Failure to Appear or Submit Evidence. Should you fail to appear at your hearing
or, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, submit written evidence to the hearing officer
and to the director of the department that issued the citation, your appeal may be
considered abandoned. Abandonment of the appeal is a failure to exhaust
administrative remedies making your citation fine due and payable immediately.
An in-person hearing is your right but not a requirement. Upon receiving this
Notice of In-Person Hearing, should you determine you are unable to attend the
hearing as scheduled, immediately notify the hearing officer and your appeal
can instead be reviewed on the record.
Notice of In-Person Hearing
Page 2
4. Addresses for Communication, Notices, or Requests. Any communications,
notices, or requests to the hearing officer, or to the director of the department that
issued the citation shall be addressed as follows:
City Attorney’s Office
Attn: Amel Belghoul
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Email: city_attorney@slocity.org
Additional information regarding the appeal process may be found in Chapter 1.24 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code which is posted at: https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/.
If the City has included in the administrative record video or audio recordings related to the
citation being appealed, those may be reviewed in their entirety by contacting the staff
member listed below and scheduling a time to review the recordings in-person. No copies
will be provided and no remote viewing will be facilitated. Any request to review the
recordings must be received at least two (2) business days in advance of your hearing date.
Please note that audio generated in close proximity to the body worn camera microphone is
prioritized over ambient or distant sounds, so the sound from recordings may not accurately
reflect sound as heard by an officer on scene. For more details, please find enclosed a
notification from the body worn camera manufacturer.
If you have a disability and need a reasonable accommodation to participate in the hearing,
please contact, in writing, the director of the department that issued the citation as soon as
possible.
The appeal hearing will be conducted in English. You are welcome to bring an interpreter if
needed.
Please call (805)781-7140 or write to city_attorney@slocity.org should you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant
City Attorney’s Office
Enc: Administrative Record
Notification from Body Worn Camera Manufacturer
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
11/26/2025
KCB RENTAL HOLDINGS LLC A CA LLC
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 501 Kentucky St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-203-007
Code Case #: CODE-000287-2025
Dear Property Owner,
On September 26th, 2025, 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. 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 affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University
and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings. (SLOMC 17.156.014).
After inspection, an fraternity sponsored event was documented to have occurred on September 26th, 2025
The subject address has been determined to meet 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 Section17.110.030 (Procedure—Minor Use Permit).
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in Section17.110.040 (Procedure—
Conditional Use Permit).
1908 Loomis St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
11 /26/2025
Page 2
A/M The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor
use permit review, the use may be established on the ground floor.
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.
If you choose to request a Director’s review of this Notice as described below, please submit a copy
of the event registration held by the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Life showing the location in
which the event was held on the date cited above.
A COPY OF THIS NOTICE MUST BE ATTACHED TO ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A PERMIT.
ALL REQUIRED WORK MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) immediately. These
violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Any repeated violation of the same code
sections cited in this notice 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
93406, 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) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAMI SALEM
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Officer and Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
11/26/2025
RESIDETNS
501 Kentucky St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 501 Kentucky St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-203-007
Code Case #: CODE-000287-2025
Dear Property Owner,
On September 26th, 2025, 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. 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 affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University
and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings. (SLOMC 17.156.014).
After inspection, an fraternity sponsored event was documented to have occurred on September 26th, 2025
The subject address has been determined to meet 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 Section17.110.030 (Procedure—Minor Use Permit).
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in Section17.110.040 (Procedure—
Conditional Use Permit).
1908 Loomis St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
11 /26/2025
Page 2
A/M The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor
use permit review, the use may be established on the ground floor.
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.
If you choose to request a Director’s review of this Notice as described below, please submit a copy
of the event registration held by the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Life showing the location in
which the event was held on the date cited above.
A COPY OF THIS NOTICE MUST BE ATTACHED TO ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A PERMIT.
ALL REQUIRED WORK MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) immediately. These
violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Any repeated violation of the same code
sections cited in this notice 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
93406, 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) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAMI SALEM
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Officer and Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
Community Development
91 I Palm Street, San Luis 0bispO. CA 93401 -321 B
805.781 .7170
slocity.org
Declaration of Service and Posting of Notice
SUBJECT ADDRESS:501 KEN TLJCKY SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 9340 5
CASE NO.: CODE-000287-2025 Citation No.:42 Officer: R. SALEM
l/we, the undersigned, declare that at all times herein mentioned, l/we were and now are a duly authorized
employee(s) of th-e Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo, State of California; that
pursuint io'section 1.24.050G of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC), Section 1101.4 of the
i;niform Housing Code, or Section 401.4 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildin-gs, as
adopted by Seclion 15.02.010 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, l/we deposited in a receptacle for.the
U.S. postal Service, in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, byl8 regular mail, and/or El certified mail, return
receipt requested the following:
A Notice to Correct,
Notice of Violation,
Admin istrative G itation,
Stop-Work Notice,
Notice of Hearing,
Notice of Proposed Lien,
E ttotice of SpecialAssessment
Notifying the owner of the property of the subject address referenced above of violations of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code existing on the property and/or of related abatement proceedings.
The above notice was sent to each person having an interest in the property at their respective addresses as
listed in the Notice, and a copy of the notice was posted at the subject address.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct'
Executed this 23'd day of December , 2025, San Luis Obispo, california
Officer or clerk effecting service by mail
(Print Name)(Signature)(Time/date)
Officer effecting service by posting
(Print Name)(Signature)(Time/date)
Community Development
Citation No.:42023
ADMIN ISTRATIVE CITATION
AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE91 I Palm Skeet, San Luis 0bispo, CA 93401 -321 B
805.781 .7170
slooity.orq
811", Citation fl 2no Gitation E 3'o Gitation E nooitional / Daily Fines
ADDRESS OF VIOLATION:
DATE OF VIOLATION:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
501 Kentucky Street San Luis Obispo , CA 93405 APN: 052-203-007
September 27,2025
KCB RENTAL HOLDINGS LLC
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.24 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL GODE, YOU ARE HEREBY
oRDERED TO |MMED|ATELY CORRECT THE VTOLATTON(S) DESCRIBED BELOW AND PAY THE FINE.
YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED TO CEASE THE ACTIVITY GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATION. WHEN
GoRRECTIONS ARE COMPLETE PLEASE SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION BY CALLING (805)781-7180. TO
AVOID ADDITIONAL FINES GOMPLIANCE MUST BE VERIFIED BY DEPARTMENT STAFF. IF DAILY FINES
APPLY AS NOTED ABOVE, THE FINES SHALL ACCRUE DAILY UNTIL THE VIOLATION(S) ARE
GoRRECTED. FATLURE TO CORRECT THE VTOLATTON(S) WILL RESULT lN THE ISSUANCE OF
ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS AND ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT
ACTION.
Failure to pay the fines may result in the suspension of any pending applications or permits. Unpaid
fines become delinquent after 30 days and are subject to interest accrual of 8% per month as contained
in SLOMC 1.24.070 C. The City may pursue all legal, equitable, and administrative remedies for
the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. Delinquent fines will be foruvarded to a collection
agency for payment.
Mail Payments to: Gity of San Luis Obispo, Gommunity Development Department
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, GA 93401
You may file an APPEAL of this Administrative Citation by submitting a request in writing to the
Hearing Administrator within ten days of the date this Administrative Citation is issued as shown
below. Each responsible party is individually required to file an appeal. FAILURE TO FILE AN
APPEAL WILL WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS CITATION. PICASE SEE thE AttAChEd
Appeal Form for more information.
MailAppeals to: City of San Luis Obispo, Gity Clerk
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
lssued By:R. Salem Signature:Title: Code Enforcement Officer
CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION FINE
sLoMc s 17.10.020 Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses - Unpermitted Use $1 00
Amount Due (or subtotal if daily fine)$1 00
lf Daily Fines apply the TOTAL AMOUNT DUE =no. days) X _ subtotal =
RELATED CE GASE:oDE-00028 DATE CITATION ISSUED:December 23.2025
TNVOICE (00042023)
FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BILLING CONTACT
Kyle Billingsley
KCB RENTAL HOLDINGS LLC A CA LLC
INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE INVOICE DUE DATE INVOICE STATUS INVOICE DESCRIPTION
00042023 12t23t2025 01t22t2026 Due NONE
REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME TOTAL
coDE-000287-2025 CE 1st Admin Citation $100.00
501 Kentucky St San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 SUBTOTAL $100.00
TOTAL $100.00
December 23, 2025 City of San Luis Obispo Page 1 of 1
Community Development
919 Palm Skeet, San Luis obispo, CA 93401-3218
805.781.7r 70
slocity.or0
tU2612025
KCB RENTAL HOLDTNGS LLC A CA LLC
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 501 Kentucky St. San Luis Obispo,
Code Case #: CODE-000287-2025
Dear Property Owner,
On September 26th,2025, City of San Luis
following violations of the San Luis Obispo
address:
Use
Allowed by
the Speci/ic Use
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)Alotice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
2-203-007
Department staff noted the
relevant codes at the above listed
San $ 17.10.020:
uses. (Jses within zones shall be regulated as setforth in Table 2-I: Uses
B through F of this section and additional regulations specified in
column of Tabte 2-1. Land uses are de/ined in Chapter 17.156 (Land Use
In Table 2-1 shall have these
Code
Municipal
The use is allowed as a matter of right.A
The use requires a minor use permit approved by the director, as
provided in Sectionl7.I I0.030 (Procedure-Minor Use Permit).
MUP
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in SectionlT.l10.040 (Procedure-
C onditional Us e P ermit).
1908 Loomis St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
n12612025
Page2
A COPY OF THIS NOTICE MUST BE ATTA
ALL REQAIRED WORK MUST BE
We request that you voluntarily
violations constitute a public
sections cited in this notice
Any person
completing
A/M The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor
use permit review, the use may be established on the groundfloor.
Corrective Action: Please cease all use of the subject address as a
all events that are associated with a fratemity or sorority. Any future
result in the issuance of fines.
If the location is within the R-3/R-4 zone, and a ls
Planning Department at (805)781-7l70to determine ifthe
regulations and the required steps for submittal.
. Additionally, cease
at this location may
please contact the city
to meet current zoning
TIONS FOR A PERMIT.
90 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.
noted violation(s) immediatelv. These
violation of the same code
Administrative Citation requiring
payment of FINES in 1.24. For Municipal Code violations that
remain uncorrected after the City may seek enforcement by other
civil or criminal remedies
a interest request a Director's review of this Notice by
sed Request for S Review Form and submitting it to the Community
Deve vla code@slocity.org or to 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
93406,(5) days ofthe this Notice. This Notice shall be deemed final unless you timely
file a Director's Rev
We look to resolve these violations and would like to thank you for your
efforts to maintain and to help preserve the safety and beauty of our community. If you
have questions, please contact the undersigned Officer at (805) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAiT//? Sr4/97/f
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Officer and Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
result in the
with SLOMC
an Admini
and
Citation No.: 00042756
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
1st Citation 2nd Citation 3rd Citation Additional / Daily Fines
LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 501 Kentucky Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-203-007
DATE OF VIOLATION: January 16, 2026
NAME: KCB Rental Holdings LLC
ADDRESS:
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.24 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE, YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED
TO IMMEDIATELY CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) DESCRIBED BELOW AND PAY THE FINE. YOU ARE
FURTHER ORDERED TO CEASE THE ACTIVITY GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATION. WHEN CORRECTIONS
ARE COMPLETE PLEASE SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION BY CALLING (805)781-7180. TO AVOID ADDITIONAL
FINES COMPLIANCE MUST BE VERIFIED BY DEPARTMENT STAFF. IF DAILY FINES APPLY AS NOTED
ABOVE, THE FINES SHALL ACCRUE DAILY UNTIL THE VIOLATION(S) ARE CORRECTED. FAILURE TO
CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE
CITATIONS AND ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION FINE
MC § 17.10.020 Use Regulations by Zone. Allowed Uses – Unpermited Use $500
MC § 17.10.020 Use Regulations by Zone. Allowed Uses – Unpermited Use $1000
Amount Due $1500
Failure to pay the fines may result in the suspension of any pending applications or permits. Unpaid fines
become delinquent after 30 days and are subject to interest accrual of 8% per month as contained in
SLOMC 1.24.070 C. The City may pursue all legal, equitable, and administrative remedies for
the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. Delinquent fines will be forwarded to a collection agency
for payment.
Mail Payments to: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
You may file an APPEAL of this Administrative Citation by submitting a request in writing to the
Hearing Administrator within ten days of the date this Administrative Citation is issued as shown below.
Each responsible party is individually required to file an appeal. FAILURE TO FILE AN APPEAL
WILL WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS CITATION. Please see the attached Appeal Form
for more information.
Mail Appeals to: City of San Luis Obispo, City Clerk
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Issued By: R. Salem Signature: RAMI SALEM Title: Code Enforcement Officer
RELATED CE CASE: CODE-000287-2025 DATE CITATION ISSUED: March 13, 2026
INVOICE (00042756)
FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BILLING CONTACT
Kyle Billingsley
KCB RENTAL HOLDINGS LLC A CA LLC
INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE INVOICE DUE DATE INVOICE STATUS INVOICE DESCRIPTION
00042756 03/12/2026 04/11/2026 NONEDue
REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME TOTAL
CODE-000287-2025 CE 2nd Admin Citation $500.00
CE 3rd Admin Citation $1,000.00
$1,500.00 SUBTOTAL501 Kentucky St San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
TOTAL $1,500.00
Page 1 of 1March 12, 2026 City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development
919 Palm Skeet, San Luis obispo, CA 93401-3218
805.781.7r 70
slocity.or0
tU2612025
KCB RENTAL HOLDTNGS LLC A CA LLC
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 501 Kentucky St. San Luis Obispo,
Code Case #: CODE-000287-2025
Dear Property Owner,
On September 26th,2025, City of San Luis
following violations of the San Luis Obispo
address:
Use
Allowed by
the Speci/ic Use
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)Alotice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
2-203-007
Department staff noted the
relevant codes at the above listed
San $ 17.10.020:
uses. (Jses within zones shall be regulated as setforth in Table 2-I: Uses
B through F of this section and additional regulations specified in
column of Tabte 2-1. Land uses are de/ined in Chapter 17.156 (Land Use
In Table 2-1 shall have these
Code
Municipal
The use is allowed as a matter of right.A
The use requires a minor use permit approved by the director, as
provided in Sectionl7.I I0.030 (Procedure-Minor Use Permit).
MUP
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in SectionlT.l10.040 (Procedure-
C onditional Us e P ermit).
1908 Loomis St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
n12612025
Page2
A COPY OF THIS NOTICE MUST BE ATTA
ALL REQAIRED WORK MUST BE
We request that you voluntarily
violations constitute a public
sections cited in this notice
Any person
completing
A/M The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor
use permit review, the use may be established on the groundfloor.
Corrective Action: Please cease all use of the subject address as a
all events that are associated with a fratemity or sorority. Any future
result in the issuance of fines.
If the location is within the R-3/R-4 zone, and a ls
Planning Department at (805)781-7l70to determine ifthe
regulations and the required steps for submittal.
. Additionally, cease
at this location may
please contact the city
to meet current zoning
TIONS FOR A PERMIT.
90 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.
noted violation(s) immediatelv. These
violation of the same code
Administrative Citation requiring
payment of FINES in 1.24. For Municipal Code violations that
remain uncorrected after the City may seek enforcement by other
civil or criminal remedies
a interest request a Director's review of this Notice by
sed Request for S Review Form and submitting it to the Community
Deve vla code@slocity.org or to 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
93406,(5) days ofthe this Notice. This Notice shall be deemed final unless you timely
file a Director's Rev
We look to resolve these violations and would like to thank you for your
efforts to maintain and to help preserve the safety and beauty of our community. If you
have questions, please contact the undersigned Officer at (805) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAiT//? Sr4/97/f
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Officer and Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
result in the
with SLOMC
an Admini
and
Declaration of Service and Posting of Notice
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 501 KENTUCKY SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405
CASE NO.: CODE-000287-2025 Citation No.: 42756 Officer: R. SALEM
I/we, the undersigned, declare that at all times herein mentioned, I/we were and now are a duly authorized
employee(s) of the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo, State of California; that
pursuant to Section 1.24.050G of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC), Section 1101.4 of the
Uniform Housing Code, or Section 401.4 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as
adopted by Section 15.02.010 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I/we deposited in a receptacle for the
U.S. Postal Service, in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, by regular mail, and/or certified mail, return
receipt requested the following:
A Notice to Correct,
Notice of Violation,
Administrative Citation,
Stop-Work Notice,
Notice of Hearing,
Notice of Proposed Lien,
Notice of Special Assessment
Notifying the owner of the property of the subject address referenced above of violations of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code existing on the property and/or of related abatement proceedings.
The above notice was sent to each person having an interest in the property at their respective addresses as
listed in the Notice, and a copy of the notice was posted at the subject address.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 13th day of March, 2026, San Luis Obispo, California
Officer or clerk effecting service by mail:
RAMI SALEM March 13, 2026
(Print Name) (Signature) (Time/date)
Officer effecting service by posting:
(Print Name) (Signature) (Time/date)
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to: City Clerk’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Administrative Citation Appeal Form
Form must be received by the City Clerk within 10 days of date of citation to be considered timely filed.
If no appeal is filed within ten days, the administrative citation shall be deemed final. SLMC§1.24.100(A).
Revised and Published: 7/1/2025
PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS STARTING ON PAGE 2 BEFORE COMPLETING
Address of Citation: 1 Date of Citation:
ADM or Other Cite Number:
Municipal Code Section(s) Cited:
Municipal Code Section(s) Appealed:
2 Appellant Name(s): Appellant Mailing Address(es):
Appellant Phone(s):
Appellant email address(es):
3 If applicable
Business Name: Business License #
4 Appellant Cited As: Mark only one
_____ Individual or Business _____ Owner of property or building _____ Tenant being held financially
responsible for landlord citation
5 Reason for appeal. Attach additional pages as necessary.
6 Election of Appeal Process.
Choose One. Election is final.
7 Appeal Fee. (calculate using worksheet on page 3): $ _______________
_____ Construction Board of Appeals Appeal Fee to be collected when form is submitted. Failure to pay the
appropriate fee may cause your appeal to be rejected. _____ Administrative Review Board
_____ Hearing Officer
Office Use Only
Staff initial for collection of fee _____ Date received ____________
8 In-person Hearing. Optional
I wish to have my appeal heard on the record, so I do not need to attend an in-person hearing. I understand I may submit
evidence in support of my appeal up to ten (10) days in advance of the day of review for my appeal and that I will receive written
notice of when that day of review for my appeal will be.
To waive your right to an in-person hearing, initial here: _______
9 If different that the address listed in #2 above, all future notices from the City relating to this appeal should be mailed to the
following Official Mailing Address:
10 Truth of Appeal.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all of the facts stated in this appeal are true, and
that this appeal form was executed on:
________________________________ ____________________ ______________________________, California
Signature of Appellant or Representative Date of Signature Place of Signature
11 Representative. If applicable, Legal counsel or agent of Appellant
Name and Capacity: Address:
Phone:
Email address:
Page 2
Administrative Citation Appeal Form Instructions
Questions about this form or the appeal process should be directed to the City Attorney’s Office
Email: City_Attorney@slocity.org, Phone: (805)781-7140
1. Citation Details: Describe the administrative citation received (that you are appealing) with as much detail as possible. The
specific information required by the Municipal Code is listed in the form, but any identifying information you provide will
assist staff to quickly complete the initial intake processing of your request to appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Section 1.24.100(C)(3)(a-b).
2. Appellant Details: Whether cited as an individual, business owner, property/building owner, or are being held financially
responsible as a tenant for a citation issued to your landlord, all contact information you wish to provide to the City should
be entered here. If there is more than one appellant, attach additional pages and provide the contact information for every
appellant. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(1).
3. Citation Issued to a Business: For an appeal of a citation issued directly to a business (e.g. failure to timely renew a business
license), please provide the additional information in part 3 of this form . The Business Name and License number should
be on the renewal notice, administrative citation, or other notifications.
4. Interest in Citation: For an administrative citation issued to an individual, only that specific person may submit an appeal.
Any appeal submitted by a roommate, family member, etc., on behalf of the individual cited, will be rejected. For appeals
issued to a property or building, the owner or their agent may submit an appeal, as well as any tenant who is being held
contractually, financially responsible for the property citation. Any legal representative or other agent of the appellant
should provide their own contact details in part 11 of this form. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(2).
5. Reason for Appeal: Give a brief statement of why you are appealing, the relief or action sought, and why the administrative
citation should be revoked, modified or otherwise set aside. The AMOUNT of the fine cannot be reduced on appeal. Attach
additional pages as necessary, and include any audio, video, photographic, or other supporting evidence you wish to
provide. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(3)(c).
6. Election of Appeal Process: Only one appeal process may be chosen, and once chosen, the election is final. San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(c).
All citations that include a violation of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (building and related codes), even if
other non-Title 15 code violations are also cited, must be appealed to th e Construction Board of Appeals. San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(1).
For citations that do not include a violation of Title 15, you must make a choice between:
• Administrative Review Board: If you wish to retain your right to challenge the administrative citation, or any final
city action related to the citation, in court by any writ action, you must appeal to the Administrative Review Board
for a more formal, comprehensive hearing to ensure preparation of an adequate administrative record. Should you
wish to then challenge that board’s decision in court, you will need to file a petition for writ with the Superior Court,
which may require the services of an attorney to prepare, and will require payment of the City’s costs to prepare
the administrative record. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(b).
• Hearing Officer: An expedited, less formal appeal process to a city hearing officer, whose final decision may be
appealed directly to the superior court for de novo review pursuant to California Government Code Section
53069.4. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(a).
For citations that do not include a violation of Title 15, failure to request a hearing before the Administrative Review Board
will result in the appeal being assigned to a Hearing Officer and will constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies
for purposes of any subsequently filed writ action. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(4).
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to:
City Clerk’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Page 3
7. Appeal Fee. Every path of appeal requires payment of a fee due at the time your appeal is submitted. Once your appeal is
determined to be complete, timely and valid, the fee is non-refundable as it is recovery of a percentage of the cost to bring
your appeal to hearing, regardless of the outcome. Fees are adopted by City Council resolution and updated annually.
Use the chart below to properly determine or calculate your appeal fee. If you are appealing for Hearing Officer Review
and cannot determine the amount of your fine(s), please contact the City Attorney’s Office by phone (805)781-7140 or
email city_attorney@slocity.org, and support staff will be able to assist you:
Construction Board of Appeals, Title 15 violations Fees effective 7/1/2025
Minor: related to an Alteration/Addition of an existing Single-Family or Accessory Dwelling Unit
(including duplexes), a demolition permit, or any item permitted under the “Additional Building
Fees” schedule
$636.54
Moderate: related to all other permits that are processed under the alteration/addition work class,
New Single-Family permits (including duplexes), and New Accessory Dwelling Unit permits
$1,139.18
Major: related to anything that doesn’t fall into one of the other two categories $2,011.59
Administrative Review Board $652
Hearing Officer review, capped at $109.18 but could be less depending on the amount of your fine
Amount of fine(s) being appealed:
(1)
25% of fine(s): amount in (1) multiplied by 0.25
(2)
Cost Recovery Appeal Fee Cap: (3) $109.18
Your appeal fee: whichever is less of (2) & (3)
$
Payment by check should be made out to the “City of San Luis Obispo.” Payment by credit card can be facilitated by the
Finance Department1 and should be completed prior to submission of your appeal form, with a copy of the payment receipt
attached to the form. Any appeal received without payment of the proper fee may be rejected.
8. In-Person Hearing : It is your right, no matter which appeal process you choose, to have an in-person hearing for your
appeal. However, you are under no obligation to appear. If you choose, you may elect to have your appeal reviewed on the
record (all the documents, pictures, etc. submitted by yourself or the City). San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.110(F).
This review on the record will occur on or after a certain date and you will receive written notice of the date of review for
your appeal. If you choose to participate in an in-person hearing, you will receive a written notice of hearing. San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.110(B).
9. Official Mailing Address: The Municipal Code requires certain notices be sent via U.S. Mail and so, while courtesy
notifications may be sent via email or to other addresses, you are required to provide one official mailing address for your
appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.100(C)(5).
10. Signature: The step most commonly missed in the appeal process (and the most common reason for rejection of a timely
appeal) is failure to sign the appeal and declare the facts stated in the appeal to be true. The form provides a signature
block for this purpose but if there are multiple appellants, all must sign a declaration. Any additional declarations can be
attached as additional pages. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.100(C)(5).
11. Representative of Appellant: Any legal representative or other agent assisting with the preparation of the appeal or who
intends to appear at the hearing, must provide their contact information and relationship to the appellant.
1 Finance Department staff are available by phone (805)781-7124 and at the public counter, downstairs at City Hall (990 Palm
Street), Monday – Thursday, 8:00am – 4:00pm
CODE CASE ACTIVITY REPORT CODE-000287-2025
FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Address:Closed Date:In ViolationStatus:501 Kentucky St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
10/01/2025Opened Date:Rami SalemAssigned ToCode EnforcementCase Type:
Activity Date Created By Activity Type CommentsActivity Name
10/02/2025 Investigation into RUSH event advertised on
social media associated with the fraternity Pi
Kappa Phi to occur on 9/27/25. After
inspection of all known locations used as a
fraternity associated with the organization
advertising the event, it was determined that
the event took place at 501 Kentucky. There is
no use permit for this location to operate as a
fraternity. Code enforcement staff was able
to obtain a RUSH schedule card from the
associated fraternity which displayed the
addresses of each event. The card depicts
an event having occurred at 501 Kentucky on
9/27 between 2M-5PM. A subsequent
inspection found what appeared to be a
gathering at the advertised location during the
advertised time of the event.
InspectionJohn Mezzapesa 9/27/2025
Investigation into RUSH event advertised on
social media associated with the fraternity Pi
Kappa Phi to occur on 9/26/25. After
inspection of all known locations used as a
fraternity associated with the organization
advertising the event, it was determined that
the event took place at 501 Kentucky. There is
no use permit for this location to operate as a
fraternity. Code enforcement staff was able
to obtain a RUSH schedule card from the
associated fraternity which displayed the
addresses of each event. The card depicts
an event having occurred at 501 Kentucky on
9/26 between 10AM-1PM. A subsequent
inspection found what appeared to be a
gathering at the advertised location during the
advertised time of the event.
InspectionJohn Mezzapesa 9/26/2025
11/26/2025 Generatedand and mailed a notice of violation
to the property owner and the tenants.
Notice of ViolationRami Salem 11/26/2025
12/23/2025 Citation for first violation sent to PO via first
class and certified mail and posted on site.
Sent to current resident via first class mail.
Admin CiteJohn Mezzapesa 12/23/2025
02/10/2026
Page 1 of 2City of San Luis ObispoMarch 31, 2026
CODE CASE ACTIVITY REPORT (CODE-000287-2025)
Activity Date Created By Activity Type CommentsActivity Name
Inspections were completed on January 16,
2026 at 4:17 PM and January 17, 2026 at
6:00PM by Code Enforcement supervisor J.
Mezzapesa. During both inspections several
individuals were observed in the front yard
area. During RUSH events, fraternity members
are known to be near the entrance of a
property to check-in and/or greet prospective
recruits. Additionally, during both events,
several individuals, many wearing name tags
were observed entering the property. Name
tags are known to be utilized by prospective
recruits while attending advertised RUSH
events. Given events were advertised from
5PM-7PM on 1/16/26 and 5PM-8PM on 1/17/26
by Pi Kappa Phi and, the property has been
previously identified to be used as a fraternity
and, the typical RUSH set up/use of name
tags indicative of a RUSH event was
observed, it was determined that the property
was more likely than not being use as a
fraternity during both events.
InspectionJohn Mezzapesa 1/16/2026
03/13/2026 Generated and mialed first class and certified
copies of Admin Cit to property owner and
current resident(s) and posted on site.
2nd Admin CiteRami Salem 03/13/2026
Generated and mialed first class and certified
copies of Admin Cit to property owner and
current resident(s) and posted on site.
3rd Admin CiteRami Salem 03/13/2026
Page 2 of 2City of San Luis ObispoMarch 31, 2026
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SHEET
Administrative Citation Appeal Hearing (Unpermitted Fraternities/Sororities)
I. PURPOSE OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
This supplemental information is provided to clarify the evidentiary and legal basis for determining that
the subject property was being used as a fraternity or sorority, as defined by the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (SLOMC), and therefore constitutes a prohibited or unpermitted land use in the
applicable zoning district.
Because the SLOMC definition of a fraternity/sorority includes the occurrence of “meetings or
gatherings,” but does not further define those terms, this document provides an interpretive framework
supported by the City’s Zoning Regulations, observed evidence, and relevant provisions of California
Education Code.
II. APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS
A. Use Regulations by Zone
Pursuant to SLOMC Section 17.10.020, fraternities and sororities:
• Require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the R-3 and R-4 zones
• Are not permitted in R-1 and R-2 zones
Any use not expressly allowed within a zoning district is prohibited (SLOMC 17.10.020(B).)
B. Definition of Fraternity/Sorority
SLOMC Section 17.156.014 defines a fraternity or sorority as:
A residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational
association affiliated and in good standing with California Polytechnic State University, and
where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings.
Accordingly, a property meets this definition when both of the following are present:
1. Residential occupancy by members of the organization, and
2. Meetings or gatherings conducted by the organization
C. Operational Characteristics
SLOMC Section 17.86.130 further regulates fraternities and sororities and explicitly contemplates:
• Limits on number of persons during routine meetings and gatherings
• Requirement for responsible persons during events
These provisions confirm that organized group events are a defining and regulated component of
fraternity/sorority land use.
III. AUTHORITY FOR INTERPRETATION OF UNDEFINED TERMS
Chapter 17.04 of the City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations establishes rules and procedures for
interpreting zoning provisions, including the classification of uses that are not specifically defined, and
SLOMC Section 17.10.020 further provides that where an activity is not explicitly defined in the Zoning
Code, the City may assign the activity to a substantially similar classification.
Because the terms “meetings” and “gatherings” are not defined in the Municipal Code, the City may rely
on relevant regulatory frameworks, including the California Education Code, to interpret whether such
activities are occurring.
IV. EDUCATION CODE GUIDANCE – “SANCTIONED EVENT”
California Education Code Section 66312 (AB 524) defines a “sanctioned event” in the
fraternity/sorority context as an event where one or more of the following occurs:
• The event is recognized by the institution as affiliated with a fraternity or sorority
• The organization’s name is used to advertise or publicize the event
• The organization’s name is displayed at the event
• Organization funds are used for event-related expenses
• The organization receives proceeds from the event
Notably, the use of an organization’s name to advertise or publicize an event is, in itself, a determinative
characteristic of a sanctioned fraternity or sorority event.
V. EVIDENTIARY BASIS AND DOCUMENTATION
The City’s determination that an event occurred is based on a combination of direct observations,
documentary evidence, and reasonable inferences drawn from the totality of the circumstances.
Evidence may include, but is not limited to:
A. Inspection Observations
• Date, time, and location of inspection(s)
• Number of individuals observed on site
• Nature of activity (e.g., organized gathering, coordinated entry, amplified music)
• Presence of event/organization-related indicators (e.g., lighting, signage, security, crowd pattern)
B. Social Media and Publicly Available Information
• Posts advertising events at the subject property
• Identification of an organization associated with the event
• Date, time, and location of advertised gatherings
• Photos or videos depicting the property or event-related activity
C. Correlation of Evidence
• Temporal alignment between inspections and advertised events (when available) (e.g., Event
advertised at 1PM on March 3rd and a gathering is observed at the same date and time)
• Repeated use of the same address by an organization
• Consistency between observed conditions and promoted activities (e.g., football game is
advertised and active football game is observed)
VI. INTERPRETATION OF “MEETINGS OR GATHERINGS”
A. Identification of Events as “Meetings or Gatherings
California Education Code Section 66312 identifies fraternity and sorority activities as “events,”
including those that are organized, promoted, or associated with a specific organization. Pursuant to
SLOMC Section 17.04.010, which allows for the interpretation of undefined terms using relevant
regulatory frameworks, the City may rely on this characterization when interpreting “meetings or
gatherings” under the Municipal Code.
Events identified under the Education Code typically include characteristics such as:
• Being organized or promoted by the association
• Reflecting coordinated group activity
• Demonstrating use of the property beyond typical residential living
• Establishing the presence of an identifiable organization operating at the site
B. Role of Advertised Events
The advertisement of an event by a fraternity or sorority that includes a specific date, time, and
address demonstrates that the property is being used, or intended to be used, for organizational
gatherings associated with that group.
Under California Education Code Section 66312, the use of an organization’s name to advertise
or publicize an event is itself a determinative characteristic of a sanctioned event.
While direct observation of the event may not always be available, the public promotion of such
events at a specific residential property establishes that the site functions as a location for
organized gatherings.
Evidence of advertised events alone may not be dispositive; however, when such advertisements
are repeated, corroborated by independent sources (e.g., social media posts, third-party reports,
or platform-based event listings), or reasonably linked to staff observations at the property, they
provide evidence of “meetings or gatherings” as required under the SLOMC’s definition of a
fraternity or sorority.
VII. REASONABLE INFERENCES REGARDING ORGANIZATIONAL USE
A. Organizational Control and Use of Property
Where an organization advertises events at a specific address, it is reasonable to conclude that:
• The organization exercises control, access, or authority over the property
• The property is used as a central location for group activities
• The use is not incidental, but part of a pattern of organized activity
B. Inference of Residential Component
Direct confirmation of residency or membership affiliation is not always available; however,
land use determinations may rely on reasonable inferences supported by evidence.
Where an organization repeatedly promotes and utilizes a specific residential property for
gatherings, it is reasonable to conclude that:
• Members of the organization are residing at or operating from the property, or
• The property functions as a de facto chapter house or residence
This inference is supported by the operational characteristics of fraternity and sorority
organizations, which commonly use residential properties under member control for both living
and organizational activities.
VIII. TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD
The determination that a property is operating as a fraternity or sorority use is not based on any
single piece of evidence, but rather on the totality of the evidence, including:
• Observed on-site activity
• Documented and advertised events
• Repetition and pattern of use
• Organizational association with the property
When considered together, these factors provide evidence that the property satisfies both elements of
the SLOMC definition:
1. Residential use by members, and
2. Meetings or gatherings conducted by the organization
IX. CONCLUSION
The City’s Zoning Regulations authorize interpretation of undefined terms and classification of
land uses based on substantial similarity. The Education Code definition of a “sanctioned event”
provides a clear and appropriate framework for identifying fraternity or sorority-related
gatherings.
Evidence including advertised events, observed activity, and patterns of use demonstrates that
the subject property functions as a location for organized fraternity or sorority gatherings. When
combined with reasonable inferences regarding residential use, the totality of the evidence
supports the determination that the property was operating as a fraternity or sorority use as
defined by the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Accordingly, the use constitutes a violation of SLOMC Section 17.10.020 where such use is not
allowed or has not been approved through a Conditional Use Permit.
Revise Administrative Citation Appeal Form �����i
MAR 2 O 2026
Form must be received by the City Clerk within 10 days of date of citation to be or8f..<@rgfll'tl'1'e0f=If no appeal is filed within ten days, the administrative citation shall be deemed fi
PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS STARTI�� ON PAGE 2 BEFORE COMPLETING
1 Date of Citation: M <J.r-J.,.., 13 T'"'-. tl.o'Z.;b Address of Citation: 5'o I �-{,�., J;t�ADM or Other Cite Number: ooo4"2.,,'?<::::> 7
2
3
4
Municipal Code Section{s) Cited: M-G � 7. JO. OuO Municipal Code Section{s) Appealed: l. 1.,,<.,j. o�o {,r:> c,.,r-J. FJ
Appellant Name(s): t;:>0_1 ,.1� A lo~�o Appellant Phone{s): Appellant email address(es):
I/ applicable
Business Namr.
Appellant Mailing Address(es): SC?//<'e,a+v. u� Vs�
Business License # Appellant Cited As: Mark only oneIndividual or Business __ Owner of property or building V"tenant being held financially responsible for landlord citation
5 Reason for appeal. Attach additional pages as necessary. (}-,J, � -r_ o.,� °"W�;� o.-\, -.L-\,'(,,, i.::,-ovvJ!:. +L..,e,s�wJ ""'"J. -+'-i • c_.l'+c�,'°v��
6
i,y.J2.� &l'-e,<l..,.r;::;,"' -J,L.-ve,, :s'..,.,'ftt;.J..J d�"t ✓ ,:e be.J/le',v-f!.,, /,,.,, v/olo.,,+�'A-0 -1/ Mv-r,JJrvi �Je, ,. '2H,.::;;, soc::>'). 7 oi,,- o-,1.Jo 0-,�l./'v,.,7 'Y� IA)e_, vv� l'\-o-P ._:}Iv� ,-,,�-J,Le.., O+' t;,,ke_,,, fe£,o� c./'-po7b�v, J,�re., W� r-�if\J� .,e, -bl.,f"1, /v., vlbl.:v+fl::u- � Jt/4y.lv}1jd!
Election of Appeal Process. 7 "'9Je,
Choose One. Election is final. Appeal Fee. (calculate using worksheet on back): $ ______ /. W�o�o
__ Construction Board of Appeals Administrative Review Board
V"'Hearing Officer
Appeal Fee to be collected when form is submitted, Failure to pay the
appropriate fee may cause your appeal to be rejected,
8 In-person Hearing. I wish to have my appeal heard on the record, so I do not need to attend an in-person hearing. I understand I may submit evidence in support of my appeal up to ten (10) days in advance of the day of review and that I will receive written notice of when that day of review will be.
Confirm decision to decline in-person hearing by initialing here: __ _
9 If different that the address listed in #2 above, all future notices from the City relating to this appeal should be mailed to the following Official Mailing Address:
10 Truth of Appeal.
11
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all of the facts stated in this appeal are true, and that this a 7 • al rm was executed on:
1gnature o p e ant or e resentat1ve -�-C:_>A_Lv-__ l!>_O_b_' r __ .p.._o_�• CaliforniaPlace of Signature
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org Or deliver in person or by mail to: City Clerk's Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
-�4'/v\M,-E'....,A ole&c.r-11(Y-vlt," � �07'°' � ... a..p� 0r,.
!)e,,,d.,,..; 0 � r:' �-?_I
AB 3/20/26
s:¼~}o ·,") . I :2.61, 050 CD') SiA.::,j •?,;$~~ e.:,,.,~. c,{.c,1 fV'h-...y 00l)S-/, {./;,"t{0
CJ.I' ~\'.J ✓-l,kN\<.,.J\ vlo fc,..-ltloV) +~ r ~ O-~t,1._,-J;,/0~4 l T. ~(:,,\,Vq__, (l,c,-/., fo.1.-i...l ~
l" M V\-"•'u <'.:,,l c:o(.,w,_,, 17 .. /o., o-2,,0 c.Jh~,r-{, -i,.l1 t<:: ~fJ<>...u-tf(0 vlo/<,;;,t,,¾w
v-1'1 M,I <..,\ b-v c-/Y"< e~ is-/o ,A -pl(.7 --1,, l. ~ ~ / If\ i , "2.).1 ~ o S',o Lo) .
7h ~_).s;., r·-e..,, / -i, Li • '$. C. v'-l r..~ .' 0•"1 / ~ / 1,... v /,,D f t!.~../:;,I -:::n 1 O p (.-0 ~.A.q,, o.,-,,J,, s(~Q(,-'t,,1--d .
b€- ~l..t<"-tJ Orr- ~,~~~--e.4 .,._,,t.;, l,. o,--.iy -f-~ J'~•'1d C~l'o,'1 ., ft.I;;
C'.J...~(.),U cl..4 V R-✓< .. <)AA-5-e,_.,,, b"',--l,L1.. (_.,,(~c"-.,"P,~ll\::- 6.,..-e.,,,, <:) I,'"\ -t-l-.e_,, S<'.'.,-,Lv"'r..,,..PJ Jo,.
Also/ s:l'\,(A..; ,1;-,,Lte,--'~ vr~l~\,-t,;l(j~~· (..V e.re,, lsff..v~ /.,. p~~ G.O<'JleJ } . z«. cco <,~
:5 vJ1ak,·bW . We_.. IN'~-_; rr,,,·t:, c.3!v~,,., c:;\.. r-i-5 \;1..,-v ...J,o W.v ~k.e_, C(+t':f~,,'\:J-." or
('/'l)f e.,e,,v { -u:e: c.,,(n.,,/;,,b -v"\ (.A..l¼,e..,,... (:'.,/--i,,?.,J. +;,,... t::/-.. s~.-'?J ..p/0,,e_,,, A.f-6--e..,.-
re~ f i.r. _;,:~ o'v ..("' ~ .,,J G, ✓ i t.N"b~ VI CA.I e., $;' (.,-cw.- J d lz '-MJ-(0 JfJ-e>..¥7 !J' 'J~
--bi.vu Jvv..:,,.,L@__., -/Jo F,1,x, or r,J--(Jf& 1 -6~✓ <..,-f·¼-b-f~if'I JeA"".or<...,,,J r~-<--<::_).JJ~
CL, -t k..tc-vl <~I--C ~,,(;,"" .• 7~v'Y (i ~ .... Jc.~~-t,4 I j 2J-.i. O ':k'J C,J?:-:). ~r -bkJ~
r-r:,,,c_~~.1 .7 0Vd~ i'W<>,-.0,_, c.,,l .o-~ -Uu:s. c;J+C"/\7 4,(b V\ s·~-.A..!J, };,~7-,, n::J,.JOk.A~-J
J .
o r r-e.--~1..,P.....-1.A (,,,/ I-L l-i O \..t.-~ -b~0 _('ee.:o vid (_, r'-1>r::-;,d,l'Ovt • ~c:J/ll'i..., yo,,/4,,•
City of San Luis Obispo Finance
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7124 www.slocity.org
Thank you for your payment.
Have a nice day!
Friday Mar 20 2026 09:46:05 AM
Adrnin Citation Appeal Fee (ACAF)
DOMINIC ALONSO - 501 KENTUCKY ST. 106.00
~-------·~-··-·---·--···-----··-·- ~---- ---·----·-
Total
Check
106.00
106.00
Receipt#: finance-03202026-5
Cashier: Liliana Quintana
~ ~ o,;-
_) (0 ~
~
-~
\"' ~
,J
~;
~ ~
c..
--~- \j (
~ ·-:! a ~
~ 0 \~ \) '..!> J
,_,..-- ~ s ~,~
0 , ~~ 0 Q=-
-~ < ~ t ·1:
C ·-- --~ ·bh 1"-. ,j
-t \j
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
805.781.7170
SIOCityorg
Citation No.: 00042756
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
01st Citation 2nd Citation 0 3rd Citation D Additional/ Daily Fines
LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 501 Kentucky Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-203-007
DATE OF VIOLATION:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
January 16, 2026
KCB Rental Holdings LLC
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.24 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE, YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED
TO IMMEDIATELY CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) DESCRIBED BELOW AND PAY THE FINE. YOU ARE
FURTHER ORDERED TO CEASE THE ACTIVITY GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATION. WHEN CORRECTIONS
ARE COMPLETE PLEASE SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION BY CALLING (805)781-7180. TO AVOID ADDITIONAL
FINES COMPLIANCE MUST BE VERIFIED BY DEPARTMENT STAFF. IF DAILY FINES APPLY AS NOTED
ABOVE, THE FINES SHALL ACCRUE DAILY UNTIL THE VIOLATION(S) ARE CORRECTED. FAILURE TO
CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRA TIVE
CITATIONS AND ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION FINE
MC§ 17.10.020 Use Regulations by Zone. Allowed Uses - Unpermited Use $500
MC§ 17.10.020 Use Regulations by Zone. Allowed Uses - Unpermited Use $1000
Amount Due $1500
Failure to pay the fines may result in the suspension of any pending applications or permits. Unpaid fines
become delinquent after 30 days and are subject to interest accrual of 8% per month as contained in
SLOMC 1.24.070 C. The City may pursue all legal, equitable, and administrative remedies for
the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. Delinquent fines will be forwarded to a collection agency
for payment.
Mail Payments to: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
You may file an APPEAL of this Administrative Citation by submitting a request in writing to the
Hearing Administrator within ten days of the date this Administrative Citation is issued as shown below.
Each responsible party is individually required to file an appeal. FAILURE TO FILE AN APPEAL
WILL WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS CITATION. Please see the attached Appeal Form
for more information.
Mail Appeals to: City of San Luis Obispo, City Clerk
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Issued By: R. Salem Signature: __ ~;e,mt~~1=S.~'A.~1.1!=8'»t~ Title: Code Enforcement Officer
RELATED CE CASE: CODE-000287-2025 DATE CITATION ISSUED: March 13, 2026
PROOF OF SERVICE
- 1 -
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
I am employed in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. I am over the age of
18, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California 93401.
On April 23, 2026, I caused the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL HEARING to be served on the interested parties in this action
by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes, addressed as follows:
Dominic Alonso
501 Kentucky St
S s Obispo, CA 93401
Email:
[X] By United States Mail: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope addressed as
indicated above. I am readily familiar with the office’s practice of collection and
processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same
day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served,
service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
than one day after the date of service.
[X] Courtesy Copy by E-mail: I caused this document to be transmitted via e-mail to the e-
mail address listed above.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 23, 2026, at San Luis Obispo, California.
_____________________________
Amel Belghoul
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Thursday, April 23, 2026 11:01 AM
To:Mezzapesa, John; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); McDonald, Whitney
Cc:Brett Cross; Carolyn Smith; Sandra Rowley; Stewjenkins Info; Steven Walker; Collins,
Scott
Subject:Re: Fraternity houses were documented by Cal Poly PD
Attachments:CDD fraternity action.pdf
I haven't heard back so wanted to follow up.
1. Why was the CDD not made aware of the weekly lists of FSL approved events being held in the City,
which were sent to SLOPD by Cal Poly PD? City emails show this was happening before and during our
conversations about enforcement, and the CDD was unaware of the locations.
2. Do you know why those locations were allowed to continually hold events, in violation of the zoning
code? Christine Wallace has repeatedly said, "I'm not code enforcement." as though it excuses the
failure to act on these violations. We want to understand how the City is coordinating at this point to
make some progress.
3. What is the current status of Delta Upsilon's fraternity house at 281 Albert Drive? Have the recent
cases been heard by the Hearing Officer? If so, please provide those records.
The appeal information I received for code violations at 281 Albert Drive is confusing, especially because
there appear to be multiple clerical errors which resulted in refunds to the appellant. It is not clear what,
if any, violations resulted from the ongoing fraternity events at the property. (see attached files)
4. When you presented the case to the Hearing Officer, did you include the AB 524 information from Cal
Poly that documented this address as a fraternity? Or are you presenting the individual cases as isolated
events? It's important to build a case based on the entire record so the Hearing Officer sees the pattern
and practice.
5. Have you requested event records from Cal Poly for the fraternity for events registered in 2026?
Steve asked for Alpha Epsilon Pi's registration records for 2026 and Cal Poly sent them 10 days later.
(They show seven parties with 100 - 160 people before the re-review hearing.) The registration records
support the DoorList postings and are an important component of building the case to allow the Hearing
Officer to see the whole picture.
Please let me know the answers to my questions. We have been trying to get this issue solved since our
meeting in November 2023 and expected to be further along at this point.
Back in 2024, after Advisory Letters and NOVs were sent to fraternity properties listed on the AB 524
reports, I audited those records and found many addresses were missed, including 281 Albert Drive and
sent a follow-up report (See attached: CDD fraternity action). If the City would have documented those
addresses at that time, then held the property owner responsible for subsequent violations, we would
2
not be in this situation today. This case is an example and indication of the overall problem and is the
reason this horrible problem has continued to plague our neighborhoods, which continues to the
present.
Before our meeting on Friday, I'd like to know the answers to these questions.
Thank you,
Kathie
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of
this picture
from the
Internet. 281 Albert Drive appeal 49 pgs.pdf
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of
this picture
from the
Internet. 281 Albert Drive appeal 53 pgs.pdf
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 4:34 PM kathie walker < wrote:
Hi John,
I'm going through the records produced by the City and have questions, but first I wanted to flag
something that I found. It appears that while CDD staff were looking for evidence that certain addresses
were being used as fraternity houses, SLOPD knew the addresses because Cal Poly PD was sending
lists of the approved FSL events to a SLOPD lieutenant every weekend and those lists were passed
along to Christine Wallace.
Based on notes from my meeting with you and Timmi in November 2023, Timmi was skeptical of using
information from social media, including posts of events made by the fraternities, but was comfortable
relying on Cal Poly's AB 524 reports. However, SLOPD was receiving weekly lists from Cal Poly PD. I am
not sure why this information was not communicated with the CDD.
It's a bit frustrating to read the records and realize the departments were siloed where collaboration
could have rectified the situation much sooner. Instead, the number of fraternity houses exponentially
expanded throughout the neighborhoods and continue to operate today. :(
I've attached one of the emails that shows the lists were being sent from Cal Poly PD to SLOPD. The
most confusing part for me is that Derek Johnson told me in 2022 that fraternities were illegal in all R-1
and R-2 neighborhoods, and needed a permit for R-3 and R-4 neighborhoods. Meanwhile, SLOPD was
fully aware of the addresses where illegal fraternity operations were happening. That doesn't make
sense.
I hope you'll attend the meeting on Friday, April 24 at 3 pm at the CDD with RQN regarding the upcoming
study session on May 26.
-Kathie
Spreadsheet from Community Development with addresses that received Notices of
Violation (NOV) and Advisory Letters (AL) for illegal fraternity operations……………………………...... 2
Documented illegal fraternity houses in AB 524 report and/or social media and in my report
provided to Community Development on 11/8/2023 not included in City’s spreadsheet.
(Some are the main Chapter houses for the fraternity)……………………………………………………… 3
Beta Theta Pi 1220 Fredericks Street………………………………………………………………………. 4
Delta Upsilon 281 Albert Drive…………………………………………….…………………………………. 5 - 6
Delta Upsilon 1555 Slack……………………….……………………………………………………………… 7
Delta Upsilon 388 Chaplin Lane…………………………………………………………………………….. 8 – 9
Lambda Chi Alpha 253 Albert Drive……………………………………………………………………………….. 10
Phi Delta Theta 470 Grand Ave…………………………………………………………………………………. 11
Phi Gamma Delta 1256 Bond St ………………………………………………………………….………………. 12
Phi Kappa Psi 2061 Hope Street………………………………………………………………….…………. 13
Phi Kappa Psi 1271, 1273 & 1275 Stafford Street ………………………………………….….………. 14
Phi Sigma Kappa 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue (a.k.a “the Pink House”) …………………………….. 15-17
Phi Sigma Kappa 1908 Loomis……………………………………………………………………………………. 18
Pi Kappa Phi 66 Rafael Wy …………………………………………………………………………..………. 19
Pi Kappa Phi 447 N. Chorro……………………………………………………………………….…………. 20
Sigma Nu 290 Chaplin Lane……………………………………….……………………………….…… 21
Theta Chi 1350 Stafford Street…………………………………………………………………………. 22
Theta Chi 410 Grand Avenue………………………………………………………………………...... 23
Zeta Beta Tau 654 Graves…………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
Zeta Beta Tau 244 Albert Drive a.k.a. “The Zoo” ………………………………………………………………… 25-26
Notice of Violation for 1525 Slack Street – Sigma Pi NO DATE on Notice of Violation…………….. 27
Notice of Violation for 1327 E. Foothill – Beta Theta Pi NO DATE on Notice of Violation………… 28
Advisory Letter for 1740 Fredericks St – Phi Kappa Psi WRONG ADDRESS in Letter……........ 29
List of 17 Notices of Violation and Advisory Letters that were “lost” by the City
therefore, were not included in responsive documents for my public records request…………… 30
Table of Contents
1
Theta Chi 1441 Slack St
Delta Upsilon 1700 Fredericks St
Lambda Chi Alpha 171 Orange Dr
Theta Chi 1820 Hope St
Sigma Phi Epsilon 2090 Hays St
Lambda Chi Alpha 12 Hathway Ave
Alpha Sigma Phi 1218 Bond St
Phi Gamma Delta 1229 Fredericks St
Sigma Pi 124 Stenner St
Lambda Chi Alpha 1243 Monte Vista Pl
Sigma Pi 1525 Slack St
Sigma Nu 250 Grand Ave
Lambda Chi Alpha 278 Albert Dr
Alpha Sigma Phi 299 Albert Dr
Sigma Nu 301 Hathway Ave
Alpha Epsilon Pi 331 Hathway Ave
Beta Theta Pi 1327 E. Foothill Blvd
Kappa Sigma 1861 Hope St
Theta Chi 2149 Santa Ynez Ave
Phi Kappa Psi 1740 Fredericks St
Zeta Beta Tau 2044 Loomis St
? 212 Albert Dr
? 1744 McCollum St
Zeta Beta Tau 1841 Slack St
Kappa Sigma 1990 McCollum St
311 E. Foothill Blvd
Kappa Sigma 322 Hathway Ave
Phi Kappa Psi 346 Grand Ave
Kappa Sigma 526 Kentucky St
“ “
“ “
“ “
“ “
“ “
Used as Event Venue 1010 Paseo De Caballo
Sigma Nu 1621 McCollum St
Theta Chi 1661 McCollum St
Phi Kappa Psi 237 Albert Dr
Phi Gamma Delta 385 Chaplin Ln
? 525 El Camino Real
? 1130 Olive St
Kappa Sigma 1142 Montalban St
1725 Santa Barbara Ave
Zeta Beta Tau 1928 Garfield St
typo on AB524rpt (1238) 238 Foothill Blvd
Beta Theta Pi 556 Hathway Ave
Zeta Beta Tau 658 Graves Ave
Kappa Sigma 108 Crandall Wy
Theta Chi 1238 E. Foothill Blvd
Lambda Chi Alpha 1241 Monte Vista Pl
Phi Gamma Delta 1254 Bond St
Theta Chi 191 Kentucky St
Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway
? 618 Felton Wy
2
Notices of Violation (NOV) and Advisory Letters (AL) not included in City’s spreadsheet.
Documented in AB 524 report and/or social media and in my report provided on 11/8/2023.
Some are the main Chapter houses for the fraternity. Not sure how they were missed.
Beta Theta Pi 1220 Fredericks Street (see attachment/documentation)
Delta Upsilon 281Albert Drive (see attachment/documentation)
388 Chaplin Lane (see attachment/documentation)
1555 Slack St (see attachment/documentation)
Lambda Chi Alpha 253 Albert Drive (see attachment/documentation)
178 Chaplin Lane
Phi Delta Theta 470 Grand Ave (see attachment/documentation)
260 Chaplin Lane* (not listed on City’s spreadsheet but AL sent)
251 Highland Dr (not on City’s spreadsheet but AL sent)
568 Ellen Way (not on City’s spreadsheet but AL sent)
Phi Gamma Delta 1256 Bond St* not included (separate address from 1254 Bond)
Also 1254 Bond received AL but this is the fraternity’s
main Chapter house (see attachment/documentation)
Phi Kappa Psi 2061 Hope St (see attachment/documentation)
1271, 1273 & 1275 Stafford (see attachment/documentation)
Phi Sigma Kappa 348 & 350 Hathway Ave* (see attachment/documentation)
1908 Loomis St (see attachment/documentation)
Pi Kappa Phi 447 N. Chorro
66 Rafael Way**(see attachment/documentation)
Sigma Nu 290 Chaplin Lane (see attachment/documentation)
Theta Chi 496 Kentucky St (see attachment/documentation)
1350 Stafford St (see attachment/documentation)
410 Grand Ave
Zeta Beta Tau 654 Graves* Shown as main Chapter house on AB 524 Report
see attachment/documentation)
244 Albert Drive (see attachment/documentation)
*Property is the main Chapter house for the fraternity
**Property is the main Chapter house for the fraternity within the City limits
3
Beta Theta Pi 1220 Fredericks Street
Beta Theta Pi’s AB 524 report shows event at 1220 Fredericks St
Rush events on Fredericks St posted on Beta Theta Pi’s Instagram account show an
event at 1220 Fredericks St on 10/11/2023 during 2023-2024 academic year
See: https://www.instagram.com/beta_calpoly/
Rush event at 1220 Fredericks St
10/12/2023 4
Delta Upsilon 281 Albert Drive
Delta Upsilon listed multiple events at 281 Albert Drive in their AB 524 report
Delta Upsilon continued to host fraternity events at 281 Albert Drive during the
2023-2024 year 5
Delta Upsilon 281 Albert Drive
Delta Upsilon also listed a rush event at 281 Albert Drive during fall and winter rush 2023
During 2023-2024 academic year 6
Delta Upsilon 1555 Slack
Delta Upsilon held a fraternity-related event at 1555 Slack St 5/12/2024 posted on Instagram
Delta Upsilon listed events at 1555 Slack St in their AB 524 report
7
Delta Upsilon 388 Chaplin Lane
Delta Upsilon had events listed at 388 Chaplin in their AB 524 report
Delta Upsilon had a rush event at 388 Chaplin, posted on their Instagram page
8
Delta Upsilon 388 Chaplin Lane
Delta Upsilon had another rush event at 388 Chaplin, posted on their Instagram page
Delta Upsilon had an event at 388 Chaplin on 2/17/2024 during 2023-2024 academic year
posted on their Instagram page
9
Lambda Chi Alpha 253 Albert Drive
Lambda Chi Alpha rush event at 253 Albert Dr on 10/12/2023
posted on their Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/lambdachi_calpoly/
Lambda Chi Alpha event advertised at 253 Albert Dr on 3/10/2024 10
Phi Delta Theta 470 Grand Ave
A video posted on Phi Delta Theta’s Instagram page shows the fraternity brothers
“getting ready for rush” at the house at 470 Grand Ave.
Another post shows the fraternity guys on the roof and yard in the house at 470 Grand Ave
With the caption “RUSH PHI DELT”
470 A Grand Ave
11
Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI) 1256 Bond St
Phi Gamma Delta had events at 1256 Bond St on their AB 524 report
The main Chapter house for Phi Gamma Delta “FIJI” is the duplex at
1254 & 1256 Bond St. The fraternity’s logo is a drawing of the house at 1254 /1256 Bond.
This is their main Chapter facility in an R-1 zone.
FIJI held their annual Dad’s weekend event
at 1256 Bond St (and 1254 Bond St)
3/2-3/3/2024
12
Phi Kappa Psi 2061 Hope Street
Phi Kappa Psi rush at 2061 Hope St 10/12/2023
Phi Kappa Psi held rush event at 2061 Hope St (posted 10/9/2023)
13
Phi Kappa Psi 1271, 1273 & 1275 Stafford Street
Phi Kappa Psi fraternity event in courtyard of the three houses
This is a new fraternity compound for Phi Kappa Psi established
at the beginning of 2023-2024 academic year 14
Phi Sigma Kappa 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue (“the Pink House”)
Phi Sigma Kappa Winder Rush Schedule
Lists 348 Hathway Ave
Video on Phi Sigma Kappa’s
Instagram page identifies
348 Hathway Ave as the
main Chapter house
Phi Sigma Kappa’s rush events
Winter 2024 identifies 348 Hathway Ave
Phi Sigma Kappa’s rush promotion photo shows
party in backyard of 348 Hathway Ave
15
Phi Sigma Kappa 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue (“the Pink House”)
Phi Sigma Kappa’s rush events
Fall 2023 identifies 348
Hathway Ave
Phi Sigma Kappa’s spring“dayge”
(daytime rager) held at 348 Hathway
May 2024
Phi Sigma Kappa’s “philanthropy” event painting fences with
other fraternities and sororities
Event posted on their Instagram page, June 2024
16
Phi Sigma Kappa 348 & 350 Hathway Avenue (“the Pink House”)
Phi Sigma Kappa’s “ back house at 350 Hathway Ave
It is on the same parcel but recognized as separate address
for citations, so they are divided between 348 and 350
Hathway
Phi Sigma Kappa’s “ back house at 350 Hathway Ave listed in AB 524 Report
17
Phi Sigma Kappa 1908 Loomis Street
Phi Sigma Kappa’s “ back house at 1908 Loomis listed in AB 524 Report
Video on Phi Sigma Kappa’s
Instagram page identifies
1908 Loomis St as the
satellite house
Rush event at 1908 Loomis 10/12/2023
18
Pi Kappa Phi 66 Rafael Way
19
Pi Kappa Phi 447 N. Chorro
Pi Kappa Phi winter rush 2024
Rush event at 447 N. Chorro
10/11/2023
20
Sigma Nu 290 Chaplin Lane
Fraternity members in front of their house
at 290 Chaplin Lane
This fraternity house hosted several events with
sororities, during the 2023-2024 academic year,
including a party with over 100 people on 10/27/2023
The party will likely be listed on Cal Poly’s AB 524 report
posted 10/1/2024
21
Theta Chi 1350 Stafford Street
Theta Chi rush event posted on
Instagram at 1350 Stafford
10/11/2023
Photo of Theta Chi Board Members
at 1350 Stafford
The house at 1350 Stafford became a fraternity in
academic year 2023 – 2024
It has held MANY fraternity parties, hosting sororities,
and has been extremely disruptive in the neighborhood.
Most parties were cleared by SNAP as ‘negative
violation’ despite being heard from a block away
22
Theta Chi 410 Grand Avenue
Screenshot of Theta Chi at 410 Grand
from Theta Chi’s rush promotion video
posted on Instagram.
This was a new fraternity house in 2023 – 2023
academic year and hosted many events and
parties that would appear on Cal Poly’s AB 524
Report to be posted on 10/1/2024
23
Zeta Beta Tau 654 Graves
The main Chapter house for Zeta Beta Tau is one of the few fraternity houses identified in
Cal Poly’s AB 524 report as “Affiliated Chapter Houses” at 654 Graves Ave.
This is the main Chapter facility for Zeta Beta Tau.
654 Graves is also listed multiple times in the “sanctioned events” for the fraternity in the
AB 524 report.
24
Zeta Beta Tau 244 Albert Drive a.k.a. “The Zoo”
Zeta Beta Tau held “sanctioned events” at 244 Albert Drive including a St. Fratty’s Day event
that was shut down by SLOPD with a Report filed by the officer re: the event. A photo of the
Backyard at 244 Albert Dr is used by Zeta Beta Tau to recruit new members (below)
25
Zeta Beta Tau 244 Albert Drive
244 Albert Drive, referred to as “the Zoo” had an event with a live band on January 12, 2024,
and a music video for the band was filmed during the concert in the backyard.
The band posted clips from the concert at 244 Albert on their Instagram page (below)
26
No Date on Notice of Violation
1525 Slack Street – Sigma Pi
27
No Date on Notice of Violation
1327 E. Foothill Blvd – Beta Theta Pi
28
Wrong address cited in letter
(should be 1740 not 1704)
1740 Fredericks Street – Phi Kappa Psi
29
The City’s spreadsheet (page 2) shows Notices of Violation and Advisory Letters were sent
to the following addresses, but the City claims the letters were “lost” by the Community
Development Department.
How will the City have a record of the violation and/or follow-up since the letters are lost?
Lost Notice of Violation:
1. Beta Theta Pi 1327 E. Foothill Blvd *main Chapter house for the fraternity
Lost Advisory Letters:
2. Kappa Sigma 1861 Hope St3. Phi Kappa Psi 1740 Fredericks St4. Phi Kappa Psi 346 Grand Ave5. Sigma Nu 1621 McCollum St6. Theta Chi 1661 McCollum St7. Phi Kappa Psi 237 Albert Dr8. Phi Gamma Delta 385 Chaplin Ln9.Kappa Sigma 108 Crandall Wy10. Theta Chi 1238 E. Foothill Blvd11. Phi Gamma Delta 1254 Bond St12. Theta Chi 191 Kentucky St13. Kappa Sigma 281 Hathway Ave *main Chapter house for the fraternity14. Unknown Fraternity 525 El Camino Real15. Unknown Fraternity 1130 Olive St16. Unknown Fraternity 618 Felton Wy17. Used as Event Venue 1010 Paseo DeCaballo
30
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Thursday, April 23, 2026 12:06 PM
To:Mezzapesa, John
Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Subject:Re: 385 Albert Dr
Attachments:Sigma Nu event 4-19-2025 DoorList in comment.pdf
John,
In reviewing the appeals of citations to property owners using fraternity DoorList posts, I can see the
disconnect between what the City is presenting and the overall presentation case.
The City should also present recordings from the officer's body cams, SLOPD complaints, and the
registration records of the events from Cal Poly. For example, some of the parties listed on DoorList had
SLOPD responses, citations (listing 100 people with a fraternity member listed on the citation), etc.
I saw the memo prepared by the City about the DoorListapp but the City did not include that DoorList is
an app used by Cal Poly to track those events. It is stated in some of Cal Poly's registration forms that
the reports from DoorList should be submitted to Cal Poly.
There is another note in Sigma Nu's registration form, beginning on page 781 of the IFC 2025 file (which
you have downloaded) that tells Cal Poly FSL admin that they will receive additional training on the
DoorList app. Therefore, tying DoorList to Cal Poly's documentation of fraternity events is another
component that needs to be pointed out to the Hearing Officer. The registration form is attached. Here is
the portion in the comments that mentions training on DoorList. The City needs to tie Cal Poly's use of
DoorList in its record-keeping to validate the DoorList posts made by fraternities.
2
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 8:16 PM kathie walker < wrote:
Hi John,
It looks like this hearing has not happened yet?
3
Please compare the SLOPD log with the events. There may have been a citation issued which would
prove the event happened. Submit that evidence to the Hearing Officer.
At least one, the "Club 1820 Sensory Overload" event advertised on 1/30/2026 received a citation with
100 people listed, and Charles (Charlie) Even is a fraternity member for Theta Chi:
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Tuesday, April 21, 2026 7:23 AM
To:Mezzapesa, John
Subject:Re: 385 Albert Dr
Attachments:Theta Chi 11-7-2025 event.pdf
Theta Chi Neon Rave on 11/7/2025 listed in IFC 2025 file at page 1515. Registration attached. Theta Chi
claimed the event did not have alcohol. No post event report or sober monitors necessary which is why
the registration form looks different from the others.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 8:54 PM kathie walker < wrote:
Also, on some events listed in the IFC 2025 file, Cal Poly's FSL Admin refers to DoorList. Theta Chi's
event on 11/14/2025 is registered in that file beginning on page 1686 and Doorlist is referenced in the
FSL Event Registration approval:
The "Jungle Party" event on 10/10/2025 is also registered and attached. It begins on page 1288 of the IFC
2025 file.
Please submit this evidence to the Hearing Officer before the hearing.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 8:16 PM kathie walker < wrote:
Hi John,
2
It looks like this hearing has not happened yet?
Please compare the SLOPD log with the events. There may have been a citation issued which would
prove the event happened. Submit that evidence to the Hearing Officer.
At least one, the "Club 1820 Sensory Overload" event advertised on 1/30/2026 received a citation with
100 people listed, and Charles (Charlie) Even is a fraternity member for Theta Chi:
1
From:SLO <sanluisobispoca@user.govoutreach.com>
Sent:Monday, April 20, 2026 1:14 PM
To:Salem, Rami
Subject:New Employee Message About Request #: 15570 [2107660O2379699]
---If replying by email, enter your reply above this line---
To help protect your
privacy, Microsoft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.
SLO
Employee Message About Request
#15570
There is a new message about this request
John Mezzapesa
April 20, 2026 at 1:13 PM
Rami, I am working on pulling stats for response time and found this request is still open
without any follow up. Please update the request and follow up accordingly.
Land Use Violation
Request #15570
Created on Mar 2, 2026 at 6:52 PM
Estimated Resolution by Mar 5, 2026
Status Assigned
Assignee Rami Salem
2
+ 1 additional attachment
Requester Name
Problem Location:
334 Foothill Boulevard
Description
Address: 334 E. Foothill Blvd
Date of event: Saturday, 2/28/2026
Nature of violation: Illegal fraternity use in R-1 zone; repeat offender
Prior history at this location: 334 E. Foothill is a documented fraternity house for Theta Chi.
(See Theta Chi-Tanic event on 2/6/2026 which had event address listed on DoorList post and
noise complaint history for this address.)
Evidence: DoorList posting; amplified music; citation from SLOPD for noise violation
Request: Please open a Code Enforcement case and investigate for zoning violation.
View Request
3
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
GOGov Logo
1
From:kathie walker <
Sent:Monday, April 20, 2026 8:55 PM
To:Mezzapesa, John
Subject:Re: 385 Albert Dr
Attachments:Theta Chi event 11-14-2025.pdf; Theta Chi 10-10-2025 event.pdf
Also, on some events listed in the IFC 2025 file, Cal Poly's FSL Admin refers to DoorList. Theta Chi's event
on 11/14/2025 is registered in that file beginning on page 1686 and Doorlist is referenced in the FSL Event
Registration approval:
The "Jungle Party" event on 10/10/2025 is also registered and attached. It begins on page 1288 of the IFC
2025 file.
Please submit this evidence to the Hearing Officer before the hearing.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 8:16 PM kathie walker < wrote:
Hi John,
It looks like this hearing has not happened yet?
2
Please compare the SLOPD log with the events. There may have been a citation issued which would
prove the event happened. Submit that evidence to the Hearing Officer.
At least one, the "Club 1820 Sensory Overload" event advertised on 1/30/2026 received a citation with
100 people listed, and Charles (Charlie) Even is a fraternity member for Theta Chi:
1
From:Belghoul, Amel
Sent:Monday, April 20, 2026 9:31 AM
To:Mezzapesa, John; Salem, Rami
Cc:Code Enforcement
Subject:Admin Citations Appeal Hearings on 4/29/26
Attachments:20260416_NOTICE OF HEARING - Zankich.pdf; 20260415_NOTICE OF REVIEW -
Hutchinson.pdf
Hello,
Attached are the notices of appeals set for hearing / review scheduled on 4/29/26. The hearing officer has
requested the presence of Rami Salem and/or John Mezzapesa at the Administrative Hearing related to
appeal 42584_1218 Bond.
In addition, please note that we are unsure if the admin record provided by code enforcement is enough to
have the citations upheld and we encourage code enforcement to attend the hearing and provide the needed
clarifications in defense of the citations.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Thank you,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant I
City Attorney's Office
E ABelghou@slocity.org
T 805.781.7555
City of San Luis Obispo, City Atto rney’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.78 1.7140, slocity.org
Notice of In-Person Hearing
Page 1
April 16, 2026
Kim Zankich
Via First Class Mail and Email to:
Re: Notice of In-Person Hearing
Administrative Citation #42584
To Kim Zankich:
On March 11, 2026, the City of San Luis Obispo received your appeal of the administrative
citation referenced above.
1. Hearing Date, Time, and Place. Your hearing on the appeal has been set for:
Wednesday April 29, at 1:30 PM
Council Hearing Room. San Luis Obispo City Hall
990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
The hearing may be continued to a different date for good cause, but not to
accommodate an academic schedule. Such a request to continue, and the reasons you
feel constitute good cause, must be submitted in writing and received by the hearing
officer or the director of the department that issued the citation within 5 days of the
date of this notice.
2. Hearing Officer or Board. The hearing officer assigned to your appeal is Sharon
Whitney.
3. Failure to Appear or Submit Evidence. Should you fail to appear at your hearing
or, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, submit written evidence to the hearing officer
and to the director of the department that issued the citation, your appeal may be
considered abandoned. Abandonment of the appeal is a failure to exhaust
administrative remedies making your citation fine due and payable immediately.
An in-person hearing is your right but not a requirement. Upon receiving this
Notice of In-Person Hearing, should you determine you are unable to attend the
hearing as scheduled, immediately notify the hearing officer and your appeal
can instead be reviewed on the record.
Notice of In-Person Hearing
Page 2
4. Addresses for Communication, Notices, or Requests. Any communications,
notices, or requests to the hearing officer, or to the director of the department that
issued the citation shall be addressed as follows:
City Attorney’s Office
Attn: Amel Belghoul
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Email: city_attorney@slocity.org
Additional information regarding the appeal process may be found in Chapter 1.24 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code which is posted at: https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/.
If the City has included in the administrative record video or audio recordings related to the
citation being appealed, those may be reviewed in their entirety by contacting the staff
member listed below and scheduling a time to review the recordings in-person. No copies
will be provided and no remote viewing will be facilitated. Any request to review the
recordings must be received at least two (2) business days in advance of your hearing date.
Please note that audio generated in close proximity to the body worn camera microphone is
prioritized over ambient or distant sounds. For more details, please find enclosed a
notification from the body worn camera manufacturer.
If you have a disability and need a reasonable accommodation to participate in the hearing,
please contact, in writing, the director of the department that issued the citation as soon as
possible.
The appeal hearing will be conducted in English. You are welcome to bring an interpreter if
needed.
Please call (805)781-7140 or write to city_attorney@slocity.org should you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant
City Attorney’s Office
Enc: Administrative Record
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
10/16/2025
Kim Zankich
Hillview Carson City LLC A NV LLC
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 1218 Bond St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-091-014
Code Case #: CODE-000267-2025
Dear Property Owner,
On September 26th, 2025, 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. 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 affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University
and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings. (SLOMC 17.156.014).
After inspection, an fraternity sponsored event was documented to have occurred on September 26th, 2025
The subject address has been determined to meet 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 Section17.110.030 (Procedure—Minor Use Permit).
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in Section17.110.040 (Procedure—
Conditional Use Permit).
1218 Bond St,
San Luis Obispo CA, 93405
10/15/2025
Page 2
A/M The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor
use permit review, the use may be established on the ground floor.
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.
If you choose to request a Director’s review of this Notice as described below, please submit a copy
of the event registration held by the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Life showing the location in
which the event was held on the date cited above.
A COPY OF THIS NOTICE MUST BE ATTACHED TO ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A PERMIT.
ALL REQUIRED WORK MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) immediately. These
violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Any repeated violation of the same code
sections cited in this notice 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
93406, 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) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAMI SALEM
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Officer and Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
10/16/2025
Residents
1218 Bond St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 1218 Bond St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-091-014
Code Case #: CODE-000267-2025
Dear Property Owner,
On September 26th, 2025, 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. 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 affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University
and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings. (SLOMC 17.156.014).
After inspection, an fraternity sponsored event was documented to have occurred on September 26th, 2025
The subject address has been determined to meet 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 Section17.110.030 (Procedure—Minor Use Permit).
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in Section17.110.040 (Procedure—
Conditional Use Permit).
1218 Bond St,
San Luis Obispo CA, 93405
10/15/2025
Page 2
A/M The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor
use permit review, the use may be established on the ground floor.
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.
If you choose to request a Director’s review of this Notice as described below, please submit a copy
of the event registration held by the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Life showing the location in
which the event was held on the date cited above.
A COPY OF THIS NOTICE MUST BE ATTACHED TO ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A PERMIT.
ALL REQUIRED WORK MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) immediately. These
violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Any repeated violation of the same code
sections cited in this notice 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
93406, 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) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAMI SALEM
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Officer and Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
Community Development REQUEST FOR DIREGTOR'S REVIEW
gtg Palm Street, San Luis 0bispo. CA 93401-3?18
805.78r.71 70
slociiy.org
Person
Address:
*
"r&.f"*
owner: Y
Address of alleged violation
Tenant:Gase #:
- Ddfe oT N otice-to- Coril{c-tlViolation :frfi#
Please identify the code violation or interpretation you are contesting. Please provide relevant
information and explain why the alleged violation or interpretation should be reconsidered. you
may attach additional pages, if necessary.
t Pfl"U ePP. P {lf { t'}{t
I hereby request a review of violation or interpretation by Comm u n ity Development Director
Signature of
Please return form to:of San
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
or
Email: code@slocity.org
COMPLETED FORM MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE COiJ|i'IUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT VYITHIN 5 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE NOTICE TO CORRECT'VIOI.ATION.
Ooqnip ennlope Uf EESITTAC$EEfer4'EgAt2,qAt tBHnlrEs
carye{r*}gd€A&e-
Tbnarf rorees tn* fe Ftsr*w trnd6e rsd it w r]l'clar 8$ a f€&n*y orsao(y ftouse.
,NTT'ALS
2. RENT G'eHg {tl'\K'ffir
THns LEA$ AGREEmENT (lseffrater'Agleerlen$ b nsde betrieen-tlnbft*u carson cfry LLc. ,exeqrbd by ils Ageltr-Lisa M-_---- (heretrffiartrd'ffitt{f), ald omarRahrnat' Jacbon tfler' eadst van @ is*q, 9om -lE___ (coiledi*ty ca*edTgtstr)' As €Bttt' Lis wr or Klm zir*bh srw rrnC nTaunro*ii t'orn-ui}Fot*"y qrnsb oeorfieard erfrre tss le*e Q0f3erFnt renaf trusl Silr * erffiro ilrb Agrcergt and €a.n relffi shatproville en oeolled Qtamnry A0teqnerfi. Rr$ra; u Gnororut *p o@*, t*arrcry h subiect to a[Tenants rcfinnirgthe arciv&esrrerGrercin s"dr€da;E ffbtA1dd;'t p"rt dtrbAgrernem)poperlsrercattedbyaparentorgusrliurUi OVamaS_
IN CONSIDERANON OF THEIT UI'ruAL PROUISIES, THE PARIES AGREE AS FC[.fOLrrF:
1. TERT
t andhrd bas€s and ffiesto To,ailt*_ Fperty bcahd efi_i2lg Bo{d s[e€q sen Lub obbpo,
Ev*lerrce of an unpemffed occrryency sftafl hrt nd be lFrfied to bedq rrchids, rwipt ofmail stlfte Premises, etc,and shen be determired in Lerdbd's sole dlscretion.
U ABG rtrttAts
?enardrouft@s IM ff ay prtimof&ersf ns d's'wq*, twrtsfleltlclt(Wfrreed*epyrlrwt
U ALC' fil{C{R,r,rxn.s
3- IATE CIIARGIES
It lor any rEason' Lrctdlqg lnnrfrchnt frrn&, tte erdire smrnt of Rent due fom Tenart is not reeiverlbv L'sdtod on fre fitd dev of tlB nrolilr by s{ro t-rn ilfi-i*aril-;prees'6'pril fte Lardrord
1
TI_r,L
Docrx&n Etudope lD: B:IF|I588€1EB-4D734M/956/A| SFBC8|C
30. Tenant agrees to only park in paved driveway/garage area of property.
31. lt is agreed that absolutely no fratemity and/or sorority events, affiliations, signs,
flags, meetings, cofiees, dinners, get togethers, parties, etc., will be on the property,
held on the property, or inside the house. This property is being leased to individual
people, jointandseverally. Shouldanyof theaboveoccuratthissite, thiswouldbea
breach of lease and could result in eviction with total lease term of rent still due to
landlord.
bV:
bna. hwust*s-UIa"
2n/2A2s
Tenant
Ll24/2A2s v24/2A2s
2/4/2025
Hillview Carson City LLC Manager, Lisa Dorcich or Kim Zankich
5 L/24/2O2s
Date
fts-^W
Ll24/2A2s
Date
Community Development
9 1 9 Palrn Street, San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 -321 B
B05 78r 7r70
slocity.org
DIRECTOR,S DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF
NOTTCE TO CORRECT/NOTICE OF VIOLATION
December 12,2025
Kim Zankich & Lisa Dorcich
Subject Address:1218 Bond Street, San Luis Obisoo. CA 93405 APN:052-091-014
Case #: CODE-000257-2025
Review: November 10, 2025
Action Reviewed: SLOMC I 17.10.020 Use Reeulated bv Zone
Date of Notice: October 16.2025 Date of Request for Director's
pursuant to Section 1,.2{090 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code the Community Development
Director or designee shall review all contested notices to correct and/or notices of violation. The
Director's designee has reviewed your submitted request for review and has made the following
determination:
The Request is denied and the action(s) reviewed is UPHELD.
COMMENTS/REASONING
The request concerning SLOMC S 17.10.020 regarding an unpermitted fraternity has been denied and
the action reviewed is UPHEID. After review of the evidence, it is clear that the location meets the
definition of a fraternity pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code $ 17.L56.O74:
Residence for college or university students who ore members of a sociol or educational
association thot is affitiated and in good stonding with the Colifornio Polytechnic State University
and where such an association olso holds meetings or gotherings.
pursuant to the City's Land Use Regulations (SLOMC 5 L7.10.020), a Conditional Use Permit is required
for the operation of a fraternity or sorority. As a part of the investigation that led to the determination
in the issued notice, a fraternity (Alpha Sigma Phi) was verified to have advertised a fraternity sponsored
event to take place on September 26,2O25, from 10AM-1PM (See below figure). A subsequent
inspection performed on the day/time of the advertised event confirmed an event associated with a
fraternity at the advertised time. Additionally, city staff confirmed that the residents who reside at the
subject address are members of the fraternity
Figure 1. Social medio post (9/25/25)
Fraternities are required to register the location of any sponsored event with CalPoly's Office of
Fraternity & Sorority Life. lf you can provide verification from this office that the event on September 26,
2025,from 1OAM-1PM, sponsored by Alpha Sigma Phitook place at a location other than the subject
address, the violation may be retracted.
Please take action to correct the code violation. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of an
Administrative Citation and a fine or other enforcement action.
Subsequent violations of the above-stated Codes within the next twelve months may result in the
immediate issuance of additional Administrative Citations and further enforcement action.
This decision is not appealable, but any challenges to the director's decision may be raised os port of an
appeot from on odministrative citotion (if an administrative citation has been issued or is subsequently
issued in connection with the Notice) pursuant to Section t.24.1OO.
Thank you for your cooperation in maintaining your property and in preserving the beauty and unique
character of our City.
Sin ly
ohn Mezzapesa
Code Enforcement Supervisor
Citation No.: 00041975
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
1st Citation 2nd Citation 3rd Citation Additional / Daily Fines
ADDRESS OF VIOLATION: 1218 Bond St San Luis Obispo, CA 93405] APN: 052-091-014
DATE OF VIOLATION: September 26th
NAME: Kim Zankich
ADDRESS:
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.24 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE, YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED
TO IMMEDIATELY CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) DESCRIBED BELOW AND PAY THE FINE. YOU ARE
FURTHER ORDERED TO CEASE THE ACTIVITY GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATION. WHEN CORRECTIONS
ARE COMPLETE PLEASE SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION BY CALLING (805)781-7180. TO AVOID ADDITIONAL
FINES COMPLIANCE MUST BE VERIFIED BY DEPARTMENT STAFF. IF DAILY FINES APPLY AS NOTED
ABOVE, THE FINES SHALL ACCRUE DAILY UNTIL THE VIOLATION(S) ARE CORRECTED. FAILURE TO
CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE
CITATIONS AND ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION FINE
MC§17.10.20 Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses – Unpermitted Use $100
MC§17.10.20 Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses – Unpermitted Use $500
MC§17.10.20 $1000
Amount Due (or subtotal if daily fine) $1600
Failure to pay the fines may result in the suspension of any pending applications or permits. Unpaid fines
become delinquent after 30 days and are subject to interest accrual of 8% per month as contained in
SLOMC 1.24.070 C. The City may pursue all legal, equitable, and administrative remedies for
the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. Delinquent fines will be forwarded to a collection agency
for payment.
Mail Payments to: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
You may file an APPEAL of this Administrative Citation by submitting a request in writing to the
Hearing Administrator within ten days of the date this Administrative Citation is issued as shown below.
Each responsible party is individually required to file an appeal. FAILURE TO FILE AN APPEAL
WILL WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS CITATION. Please see the attached Appeal Form
for more information.
Mail Appeals to: City of San Luis Obispo, City Clerk
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Issued By: R.Salem Signature: RAMI SALEM Title: Code Enforcement Officer
RELATED CE CASE: CODE-000267-2025 DATE CITATION ISSUED: 12/23/2025
INVOICE (00041975)
FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BILLING CONTACT
Kim Zankich
HILLVIEW CARSON CITY LLC A NV LLC %KIM
ZANKICH
INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE INVOICE DUE DATE INVOICE STATUS INVOICE DESCRIPTION
00041975 12/19/2025 01/18/2026 NONEDue
REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME TOTAL
CODE-000267-2025 CE 1st Admin Citation $100.00
CE 2nd Admin Citation $500.00
CE 3rd Admin Citation $1,000.00
$1,600.00 SUBTOTAL1218 Bond St San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
TOTAL $1,600.00 REMITTANCE INFORMATION
Report Text Library: Municipality_Invoice_Remit_To
Address Line 2
Address Line 3
Address Line 4
*00041975*
City of San Luis ObispoDecember 19, 2025 Page 1 of 1
Declaration of Service and Posting of Notice
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 1218 Bond Street SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405
CASE NO.: CODE-000267-2025 Citation No.: 00041975 Officer: R.Salem
I/we, the undersigned, declare that at all times herein mentioned, I/we were and now are a duly authorized
employee(s) of the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo, State of California; that
pursuant to Section 1.24.050G of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC), Section 1101.4 of the
Uniform Housing Code, or Section 401.4 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as
adopted by Section 15.02.010 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I/we deposited in a receptacle for the
U.S. Postal Service, in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, by regular mail, and/or certified mail, return
receipt requested the following:
A Notice to Correct,
Notice of Violation,
Administrative Citation,
Stop-Work Notice,
Notice of Hearing,
Notice of Proposed Lien,
Notice of Special Assessment
Notifying the owner of the property of the subject address referenced above of violations of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code existing on the property and/or of related abatement proceedings.
The above notice was sent to each person having an interest in the property at their respective addresses as
listed in the Notice, and a copy of the notice was posted at the subject address.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 23rd day of December, 2025, San Luis Obispo, California
Officer or clerk effecting service by mail:
Rami Salem RAMI SALEM 12/23/2025
(Print Name) (Signature) (Time/date)
Officer effecting service by posting:
(Print Name) (Signature) (Time/date)
Citation No.: 00042584
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
1st Citation 2nd Citation 3rd Citation Additional / Daily Fines
ADDRESS OF VIOLATION: 1218 Bond St San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-091-014
DATE OF VIOLATION: 01/17/2026
NAME: Kim Zankich
ADDRESS:
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.24 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE, YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED
TO IMMEDIATELY CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) DESCRIBED BELOW AND PAY THE FINE. YOU ARE
FURTHER ORDERED TO CEASE THE ACTIVITY GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATION. WHEN CORRECTIONS
ARE COMPLETE PLEASE SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION BY CALLING (805)781-7180. TO AVOID ADDITIONAL
FINES COMPLIANCE MUST BE VERIFIED BY DEPARTMENT STAFF. IF DAILY FINES APPLY AS NOTED
ABOVE, THE FINES SHALL ACCRUE DAILY UNTIL THE VIOLATION(S) ARE CORRECTED. FAILURE TO
CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE
CITATIONS AND ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION FINE
MC§17.10.20 Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses – Unpermitted Use $1000
Amount Due (or subtotal if daily fine) $1000
Failure to pay the fines may result in the suspension of any pending applications or permits. Unpaid fines
become delinquent after 30 days and are subject to interest accrual of 8% per month as contained in
SLOMC 1.24.070 C. The City may pursue all legal, equitable, and administrative remedies for
the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. Delinquent fines will be forwarded to a collection agency
for payment.
Mail Payments to: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
You may file an APPEAL of this Administrative Citation by submitting a request in writing to the
Hearing Administrator within ten days of the date this Administrative Citation is issued as shown below.
Each responsible party is individually required to file an appeal. FAILURE TO FILE AN APPEAL
WILL WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS CITATION. Please see the attached Appeal Form
for more information.
Mail Appeals to: City of San Luis Obispo, City Clerk
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Issued By: R.Salem Signature: RAMI SALEM Title: Code Enforcement Officer
RELATED CE CASE: CODE-000267-2025 DATE CITATION ISSUED: 2/24/2026
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
10/16/2025
Kim Zankich
Hillview Carson City LLC A NV LLC
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 1218 Bond St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-091-014
Code Case #: CODE-000267-2025
Dear Property Owner,
On September 26th, 2025, 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. 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 affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University
and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings. (SLOMC 17.156.014).
After inspection, an fraternity sponsored event was documented to have occurred on September 26th, 2025
The subject address has been determined to meet 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 Section17.110.030 (Procedure—Minor Use Permit).
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in Section17.110.040 (Procedure—
Conditional Use Permit).
1218 Bond St,
San Luis Obispo CA, 93405
10/15/2025
Page 2
A/M The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor
use permit review, the use may be established on the ground floor.
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.
If you choose to request a Director’s review of this Notice as described below, please submit a copy
of the event registration held by the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Life showing the location in
which the event was held on the date cited above.
A COPY OF THIS NOTICE MUST BE ATTACHED TO ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A PERMIT.
ALL REQUIRED WORK MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) immediately. These
violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Any repeated violation of the same code
sections cited in this notice 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
93406, 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) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAMI SALEM
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Officer and Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
INVOICE (00042584)
FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BILLING CONTACT
Kim Zankich
HILLVIEW CARSON CITY LLC A NV LLC %KIM
ZANKICH
INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE INVOICE DUE DATE INVOICE STATUS INVOICE DESCRIPTION
00042584 02/24/2026 03/26/2026 NONEDue
REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME TOTAL
CODE-000267-2025 CE Additional Admin $1,000.00
$1,000.00 SUBTOTAL1218 Bond St San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
TOTAL $1,000.00 REMITTANCE INFORMATION
Report Text Library: Municipality_Invoice_Remit_To
Address Line 2
Address Line 3
Address Line 4
*00042584*
City of San Luis ObispoFebruary 24, 2026 Page 1 of 1
Declaration of Service and Posting of Notice
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 1218 Bond Street SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405
CASE NO.: CODE-000267-2025 Citation No.: 00042584 Officer: R.Salem
I/we, the undersigned, declare that at all times herein mentioned, I/we were and now are a duly authorized
employee(s) of the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo, State of California; that
pursuant to Section 1.24.050G of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC), Section 1101.4 of the
Uniform Housing Code, or Section 401.4 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as
adopted by Section 15.02.010 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I/we deposited in a receptacle for the
U.S. Postal Service, in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, by regular mail, and/or certified mail, return
receipt requested the following:
A Notice to Correct,
Notice of Violation,
Administrative Citation,
Stop-Work Notice,
Notice of Hearing,
Notice of Proposed Lien,
Notice of Special Assessment
Notifying the owner of the property of the subject address referenced above of violations of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code existing on the property and/or of related abatement proceedings.
The above notice was sent to each person having an interest in the property at their respective addresses as
listed in the Notice, and a copy of the notice was posted at the subject address.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 24 day of February , 2026, San Luis Obispo, California
Officer or clerk effecting service by mail:
Rami Salem Rami Salem 02/24/2026
(Print Name) (Signature) (Time/date)
Officer effecting service by posting:
Rami Salem Rami Salem 02/24/2026
(Print Name) (Signature) (Time/date)
CODE CASE ACTIVITY REPORT CODE-000267-2025
FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Address:Closed Date:In ViolationStatus:1218 Bond St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
10/01/2025Opened Date:Rami SalemAssigned ToCode EnforcementCase Type:
Activity Date Created By Activity Type CommentsActivity Name
10/03/2025 Investigation into RUSH event advertised on
social media associated with the fraternity
Alpha Sigma Phi to occur on 9/27/25. After
inspection of all known locations used as a
fraternity associated with the organization
advertising the event, it was determined that
the event took place at 1218 Bond. There is
no use permit for this location to operate as a
fraternity. Inspection was completed on
September 27, 2025 at 2:02 PM by Code
Enforcement staff. During inspection several
individuals were observed in the front yard
area. During RUSH events, fraternity members
are known to be near the entrance of a
property to check-in and/or greet prospective
recruits. Additionally, during the event,
several individuals, many wearing name tags
were observed entering the property. Name
tags are known to be utilized by prospective
recruits while attending advertised RUSH
events. Given an event was advertised from
2PM-5PM on 9/27/25 and, the property has
been previously identified to be used as a
fraternity and, the typical RUSH set up/use of
name tags indicative of a RUSH event was
observed, it was determined that the property
was more likely than not being use as a
fraternity.
InspectionJohn Mezzapesa 9/27/2025
Investigation into RUSH event advertised on
social media associated with the fraternity
Alpha Sigma Phi to occur on 9/28/25. After
inspection of all known locations used as a
fraternity associated with the organization
advertising the event, it was determined that
the event took place at 1218 Bond. There is
no use permit for this location to operate as a
fraternity. Inspection was completed on
September 28, 2025 at 2:12 PM and 3:12 PM
PM by Code Enforcement staff. During
inspection several individuals were observed
in the front yard area. During RUSH events,
fraternity members are known to be near the
entrance of a property to check-in and/or
greet prospective recruits. Given an event
was advertised from 1PM-4PM on 9/28/25
and, the property has been previously
identified to be used as a fraternity and, the
typical RUSH set up indicative of a RUSH
event was observed, it was determined that
the property was more likely than not being
use as a fraternity.
InspectionJohn Mezzapesa 9/28/2025
Page 1 of 3City of San Luis ObispoApril 01, 2026
CODE CASE ACTIVITY REPORT (CODE-000267-2025)
Activity Date Created By Activity Type CommentsActivity Name
Investigation into RUSH event advertised on
social media associated with the fraternity
Alpha Sigma Phi to occur on 9/26/25. After
inspection of all known locations used as a
fraternity associated with the organization
advertising the event, it was determined that
the event took place at 1218 Bond. There is
no use permit for this location to operate as a
fraternity. Inspection was completed on
September 26, 2025 at 10:32 AM by Code
Enforcement staff. During inspection several
individuals were observed in the front yard
area. During RUSH events, fraternity members
are known to be near the entrance of a
property to check-in and/or greet prospective
recruits. Additionally, during the event,
several individuals, many wearing name tags
were observed entering the property. Name
tags are known to be utilized by prospective
recruits while attending advertised RUSH
events. Given an event was advertised from
10AM-1PM on 9/26/25 and, the property has
been previously identified to be used as a
fraternity and, the typical RUSH set up/use of
name tags indicative of a RUSH event was
observed, it was determined that the property
was more likely than not being use as a
fraternity.
InspectionJohn Mezzapesa 9/26/2025
10/29/2025 10/16/2025 Sent to PO and subject address
via first class mail
Notice of ViolationJohn Mezzapesa 10/16/2025
12/10/2025 Request for Director's review receivedAppeal to DirectorJohn Mezzapesa 11/10/2025
12/11/2025 Director's decision mailed 12/12/2025Appeal to DirectorJohn Mezzapesa 12/12/2025
12/23/2025 Generated 2nd Admin Citation on invoice and
sent property owner and copy to the current
tenant.
2nd Admin CiteRami Salem 12/23/2025
Generated 1st Admin Citation on invoice and
sent property owner and copy to the current
tenant.
1st Admin CiteRami Salem 12/23/2025
Generated 3rd Admin Citation on invoice and
sent property owner and copy to the current
tenant.
3rd Admin CiteRami Salem 12/23/2025
01/30/2026 Research found that multiple events were
advertised on Instagram to take place on
1/15/2026, 1/16/2026, 1/17/2026, 1/18/2026
and 1/23/2026. No locations were on the
social media post.
ResearchJohn Mezzapesa 1/16/2026
Page 2 of 3City of San Luis ObispoApril 01, 2026
CODE CASE ACTIVITY REPORT (CODE-000267-2025)
Activity Date Created By Activity Type CommentsActivity Name
Inspection on January 17. 2026 at 12:30 PM
was completed by Code Enforcement
supervisor J. Mezzapesa. During inspection
individuals were observed to be seated in the
driveway area. During RUSH events,
fraternity members are known to sit at tables
and chairs near the entrance of a property to
check-in and/or greet prospective recruits.
Additionally, several individuals, many
wearing name tags were observed entering
the property. Name tags are known to be
utilized by prospective recruits while
attending advertised RUSH events. Given an
event was advertised from 11AM-2PM on
1/17/26 by Alpha Sigma Phi and, the property
has been previously identified to be used as a
fraternity and, the typical RUSH set up/use of
name tags indicative of a RUSH event was
observed, it was determined that the property
was more likely than not being use as a
fraternity.
InspectionJohn Mezzapesa 1/17/2026
02/25/2026 Generated additional citation and sent certified
and first class mail to the property owner and
to the current resident(s). Also posted on site.
Admin CiteRami Salem 02/25/2026
Page 3 of 3City of San Luis ObispoApril 01, 2026
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - ADDENDUM
Use of Event Management Applications (e.g., “DoorList”) as Evidence
I. PURPOSE
This supplemental information addendum is provided to clarify the evidentiary relevance of event
management applications, including but not limited to “DoorList,” in evaluating whether a property is
being used as a fraternity or sorority as defined by the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC).
This addendum is intended to support the administrative record and provide additional context for
evaluating documented evidence.
II. BACKGROUND
SLOMC Section 17.156.014 defines a fraternity or sorority as a residential use involving both:
1. Occupancy by members of a social or educational association, and
2. The occurrence of meetings or gatherings associated with that organization
While the Municipal Code references “meetings or gatherings,” these terms are not explicitly defined.
As such, the City may apply reasonable interpretation and consider comparable frameworks and
evidence in determining whether organized group activity is occurring at a property (see also
Supplemental information sheet RE: Administrative Citation Appeal Hearing (Unpermitted
Fraternities/Sororities).
III. DESCRIPTION OF EVENT MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS
Event management applications, such as “DoorList,” are digital platforms used to organize and manage
events. Within these platforms, event information is primarily created and controlled by designated
“hosts,” which are often accounts utilizing the organization’s name and identifying Greek symbols
rather than an individual user. These host accounts input key event details, including the date, time,
location, and event description, and manage guest access by issuing invitations or approving attendance.
Guests generally do not create or modify event details, but instead respond to invitations, RSVP, or
receive access credentials (e.g., digital passes or QR codes) for entry. As such, the core event
information reflected in the platform is generated and controlled by the hosting organization.
These applications commonly include the following features:
• Creation of events tied to a specific date, time, and location
• Identification of a host organization or group
• Management of guest lists and invitations
• Controlled entry to the property through digital check-in systems (e.g., QR codes)
• Tracking of attendance and participation
These features reflect a structured and coordinated approach to organizing gatherings.
IV. EVIDENTIARY VALUE
A. Evidence of Intentional Use of Property
An event listing within an application such as DoorList demonstrates that:
• A property is identified as the location of a planned event
• The event is scheduled in advance
• The property is being represented as a venue for organized group activity
B. Evidence of Organizational Association
DoorList event listings typically identify:
• The hosting organization (e.g., fraternity or sorority)
• Individuals responsible for organizing or managing the event
This establishes a direct connection between the organization and the use of the property.
C. Evidence of Structured and Coordinated Activity
DoorList events involve a level of coordination that includes:
• Pre-approved guest lists
• Managed invitations
• Controlled access to the premises
These characteristics are consistent with organized meetings or gatherings rather than incidental
residential activity.
D. Evidence of Operational Control
The use of a guest management system demonstrates that event hosts:
• Control access to the property
• Regulate the number and identity of attendees
• Maintain authority over event operations
This supports a finding that the organization exercises control over the premises during events.
V. RELATIONSHIP TO “SANCTIONED EVENT” CRITERIA
California Education Code Section 66312 defines a “sanctioned event” to include events where an
organization’s name is used to advertise or publicize the event, or where the organization is otherwise
associated with the event.
DoorList event listings typically include:
• Use of the organization’s name
• Identification of a specific location
• Management and control of guest attendance (e.g., invitations, guest lists, and entry approval)
These characteristics are consistent with the state law definition of a sanctioned event and provide a
relevant framework for interpreting “meetings or gatherings” under the SLOMC (see SLOMC
17.04.010(B).)
VI. APPLICATION TO LAND USE DETERMINATION
The presence of a DoorList event associated with a residential property supports a determination that the
property is being used for organized gatherings where:
• The event is tied to a specific address
• The event is associated with a fraternity or sorority
• The event reflects structured planning and coordination
Even in the absence of direct observation, such evidence demonstrates that the property is being used, or
intended to be used, as a location for organizational gatherings.
VII. LIMITATIONS AND TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE
A single DoorList event, standing alone, may not establish an ongoing pattern of use. However, it
constitutes evidence of organized activity at a property.
This evidence should be evaluated within the totality of the circumstances, which may include:
• Inspection observations
• Additional event postings
• Repeated use of the property for fraternity or sorority-related events over time
• Other corroborating information
VIII. REASONABLE INFERENCES
Based on the structured nature of DoorList events, it is reasonable to infer that:
• The organization has access to and operational control over the property
• The property functions as a location for organized gatherings
• Individuals affiliated with the organization are residing at or operating from the property, or
otherwise maintaining ongoing control of the site
Such inferences are consistent with standard land use analysis and do not require direct confirmation of
residency in all cases.
IX. CONCLUSION
Event management applications such as DoorList provide reliable evidence of organized fraternity or
sorority activity at a specific property. The structured nature of these platforms—including event
creation, guest management, and controlled entry—demonstrates a level of coordination consistent with
“meetings or gatherings” under the SLOMC.
When evaluated as part of the totality of the evidence, DoorList event records support a determination
that a property is more likely than not being used for fraternity or sorority purposes and may be in
violation of applicable zoning regulations where such use is not permitted or has not been approved
through a Conditional Use Permit.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SHEET
Administrative Citation Appeal Hearing (Unpermitted Fraternities/Sororities)
I. PURPOSE OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
This supplemental information is provided to clarify the evidentiary and legal basis for determining that
the subject property was being used as a fraternity or sorority, as defined by the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (SLOMC), and therefore constitutes a prohibited or unpermitted land use in the
applicable zoning district.
Because the SLOMC definition of a fraternity/sorority includes the occurrence of “meetings or
gatherings,” but does not further define those terms, this document provides an interpretive framework
supported by the City’s Zoning Regulations, observed evidence, and relevant provisions of California
Education Code.
II. APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS
A. Use Regulations by Zone
Pursuant to SLOMC Section 17.10.020, fraternities and sororities:
• Require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the R-3 and R-4 zones
• Are not permitted in R-1 and R-2 zones
Any use not expressly allowed within a zoning district is prohibited (SLOMC 17.10.020(B).)
B. Definition of Fraternity/Sorority
SLOMC Section 17.156.014 defines a fraternity or sorority as:
A residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational
association affiliated and in good standing with California Polytechnic State University, and
where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings.
Accordingly, a property meets this definition when both of the following are present:
1. Residential occupancy by members of the organization, and
2. Meetings or gatherings conducted by the organization
C. Operational Characteristics
SLOMC Section 17.86.130 further regulates fraternities and sororities and explicitly contemplates:
• Limits on number of persons during routine meetings and gatherings
• Requirement for responsible persons during events
These provisions confirm that organized group events are a defining and regulated component of
fraternity/sorority land use.
III. AUTHORITY FOR INTERPRETATION OF UNDEFINED TERMS
Chapter 17.04 of the City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations establishes rules and procedures for
interpreting zoning provisions, including the classification of uses that are not specifically defined, and
SLOMC Section 17.10.020 further provides that where an activity is not explicitly defined in the Zoning
Code, the City may assign the activity to a substantially similar classification.
Because the terms “meetings” and “gatherings” are not defined in the Municipal Code, the City may rely
on relevant regulatory frameworks, including the California Education Code, to interpret whether such
activities are occurring.
IV. EDUCATION CODE GUIDANCE – “SANCTIONED EVENT”
California Education Code Section 66312 (AB 524) defines a “sanctioned event” in the
fraternity/sorority context as an event where one or more of the following occurs:
• The event is recognized by the institution as affiliated with a fraternity or sorority
• The organization’s name is used to advertise or publicize the event
• The organization’s name is displayed at the event
• Organization funds are used for event-related expenses
• The organization receives proceeds from the event
Notably, the use of an organization’s name to advertise or publicize an event is, in itself, a determinative
characteristic of a sanctioned fraternity or sorority event.
V. EVIDENTIARY BASIS AND DOCUMENTATION
The City’s determination that an event occurred is based on a combination of direct observations,
documentary evidence, and reasonable inferences drawn from the totality of the circumstances.
Evidence may include, but is not limited to:
A. Inspection Observations
• Date, time, and location of inspection(s)
• Number of individuals observed on site
• Nature of activity (e.g., organized gathering, coordinated entry, amplified music)
• Presence of event/organization-related indicators (e.g., lighting, signage, security, crowd pattern)
B. Social Media and Publicly Available Information
• Posts advertising events at the subject property
• Identification of an organization associated with the event
• Date, time, and location of advertised gatherings
• Photos or videos depicting the property or event-related activity
C. Correlation of Evidence
• Temporal alignment between inspections and advertised events (when available) (e.g., Event
advertised at 1PM on March 3rd and a gathering is observed at the same date and time)
• Repeated use of the same address by an organization
• Consistency between observed conditions and promoted activities (e.g., football game is
advertised and active football game is observed)
VI. INTERPRETATION OF “MEETINGS OR GATHERINGS”
A. Identification of Events as “Meetings or Gatherings
California Education Code Section 66312 identifies fraternity and sorority activities as “events,”
including those that are organized, promoted, or associated with a specific organization. Pursuant to
SLOMC Section 17.04.010, which allows for the interpretation of undefined terms using relevant
regulatory frameworks, the City may rely on this characterization when interpreting “meetings or
gatherings” under the Municipal Code.
Events identified under the Education Code typically include characteristics such as:
• Being organized or promoted by the association
• Reflecting coordinated group activity
• Demonstrating use of the property beyond typical residential living
• Establishing the presence of an identifiable organization operating at the site
B. Role of Advertised Events
The advertisement of an event by a fraternity or sorority that includes a specific date, time, and
address demonstrates that the property is being used, or intended to be used, for organizational
gatherings associated with that group.
Under California Education Code Section 66312, the use of an organization’s name to advertise
or publicize an event is itself a determinative characteristic of a sanctioned event.
While direct observation of the event may not always be available, the public promotion of such
events at a specific residential property establishes that the site functions as a location for
organized gatherings.
Evidence of advertised events alone may not be dispositive; however, when such advertisements
are repeated, corroborated by independent sources (e.g., social media posts, third-party reports,
or platform-based event listings), or reasonably linked to staff observations at the property, they
provide evidence of “meetings or gatherings” as required under the SLOMC’s definition of a
fraternity or sorority.
VII. REASONABLE INFERENCES REGARDING ORGANIZATIONAL USE
A. Organizational Control and Use of Property
Where an organization advertises events at a specific address, it is reasonable to conclude that:
• The organization exercises control, access, or authority over the property
• The property is used as a central location for group activities
• The use is not incidental, but part of a pattern of organized activity
B. Inference of Residential Component
Direct confirmation of residency or membership affiliation is not always available; however,
land use determinations may rely on reasonable inferences supported by evidence.
Where an organization repeatedly promotes and utilizes a specific residential property for
gatherings, it is reasonable to conclude that:
• Members of the organization are residing at or operating from the property, or
• The property functions as a de facto chapter house or residence
This inference is supported by the operational characteristics of fraternity and sorority
organizations, which commonly use residential properties under member control for both living
and organizational activities.
VIII. TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD
The determination that a property is operating as a fraternity or sorority use is not based on any
single piece of evidence, but rather on the totality of the evidence, including:
• Observed on-site activity
• Documented and advertised events
• Repetition and pattern of use
• Organizational association with the property
When considered together, these factors provide evidence that the property satisfies both elements of
the SLOMC definition:
1. Residential use by members, and
2. Meetings or gatherings conducted by the organization
IX. CONCLUSION
The City’s Zoning Regulations authorize interpretation of undefined terms and classification of
land uses based on substantial similarity. The Education Code definition of a “sanctioned event”
provides a clear and appropriate framework for identifying fraternity or sorority-related
gatherings.
Evidence including advertised events, observed activity, and patterns of use demonstrates that
the subject property functions as a location for organized fraternity or sorority gatherings. When
combined with reasonable inferences regarding residential use, the totality of the evidence
supports the determination that the property was operating as a fraternity or sorority use as
defined by the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Accordingly, the use constitutes a violation of SLOMC Section 17.10.020 where such use is not
allowed or has not been approved through a Conditional Use Permit.
Adm inistrative Citation A ppeal Form
Form must be received by the City Clerk within 10 days of date of citation to be c
If no appeal is filed within ten days, the administrative citation shall be deemed fina.,.iiWi lllal ili,,l,""'-1,,,,1,1 "Wli -w..K _ _.
PLEASE READ INSTRUCT IONS STARTING ON PAGE 2 BEFORE COMPLETING
1 Date of Citation: c2 ~~ f ·a& Address of Citation: / ;J_/t t3 ~
ADM or Other Cite Number:
Municipal Code Section(s) Cited:
Municipal Code Section(s) Appealed:
2 Appellant Mailing Address(es):
3 If applicable
Business Name:
4 Appellant Cited As: Mark only one
Individual or Business __ Tenant being held financially
responsible for landlord citation
5 Reason for appeal. Attach additional pages as necessary.
6 Election of Appeal Process.
Choose One. Election is final.
__ Construction Board of Appeals
~ Administrative Review Board
{ Hearing Officer
7 Appeal Fee. (calculate using worksheet on page 3): $ _
Appeal Fee to be collected when form is submitted. Failure to pay the
appropriate fee may cause your appeal to be rejected.
Office Use Only
Staff initial for collection of fee Date received .___._
8 In-person Hearing. Optional
I wish to have my appeal heard on the record, so I do not need to attend an in-person hearing. I understand I may submit
evidence in support of my appeal up to ten (10) days in advance of the day of review for my appeal and that I will receive written
notice of when that day of review for my appeal will be.
To waive your right to an in-person hearing, initial here: _
9
10
If different that the address listed in #2 above, all future notices from the City relating to this appeal should be mailed to the
following Ofikial Mailing Add<essc ~
erjury under the laws of the State of California that all of the facts stated in this appeal are true, and
~=-,-.,,.--: cuted
11
Place of Signature
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to: City Clerk's Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
City of San Luis Obispo, City Attorney’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7140, slocity.org
March 9, 2026
Kim Zankich
Via: First Class Mail and Email to:
Re: Request to Appeal Administrative Citation dated 02/24/26
Dear Kim Zankich:
On March 4, 2026, the City of San Luis Obispo received your request to appeal the
above referenced Administrative Citation. This request was incomplete and is therefore
rejected. The reason(s) for this rejection include, but are not necessarily limited to:
You have not provided the citation reference number.
You have not provided the municipal code section cited.
You have not provided the municipal code section appealed.
You have not provided the reason for the appeal.
You have not paid the appropriate appeal fee. To calculate the appeal fee, please use the
worksheet on the appeal form and the citation amount.
Because you have not provided the required information, we were not able to determine the
amount of the fine for your citation.
In July 2024, the City Council adopted an updated fee schedule which went into effect October
1, 2024. The updated fee schedule includes a fee to appeal an administrative citation to a Hearing
Officer. The Administrative Citation Appeal Form was updated to reflect this, and a blank copy
of the updated form is being enclosed with this notice.
If you choose to do so, within ten (10) days of the date of this letter, the City Clerk’s Office
must receive a written appeal that complies with the requirements of Chapter 1.24 of the City of San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code, which governs administrative citations and appeals (specifically, Section
1.24.100(C) Contents of Appeal), and the current City Fee Schedule. If no compliant request to appeal
is timely received, this appeal will be deemed abandoned and payment of the related fines will be due.
The Municipal Code is available on the City’s website, www.slocity.org or by contacting the
City Clerk’s Office. For your convenience, a form has been enclosed to capture the necessary
information. If you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 781-7140 or
city_attorney@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant, City of San Luis Obispo
Enclosures:
1. Copy of received Appeal.
2. Copy of Blank Appeal Form.
Adm inistrative Citation A ppeal Form
Form must be received by the City Clerk within 10 days of date of citation to be c
If no appeal is filed within ten days, the administrative citation shall be deemed fina.,.iiWi lllal ili,,l,""'-1,,,,1,1 "Wli -w..K _ _.
PLEASE READ INSTRUCT IONS STARTING ON PAGE 2 BEFORE COMPLETING
1 Date of Citation: c2 ~~ f ·a& Address of Citation: / ;J_/t t3 ~
ADM or Other Cite Number:
Municipal Code Section(s) Cited:
Municipal Code Section(s) Appealed:
2 Appellant Mailing Address(es):
3 If applicable
Business Name:
4 Appellant Cited As: Mark only one
Individual or Business __ Tenant being held financially
responsible for landlord citation
5 Reason for appeal. Attach additional pages as necessary.
6 Election of Appeal Process.
Choose One. Election is final.
__ Construction Board of Appeals
~ Administrative Review Board
{ Hearing Officer
7 Appeal Fee. (calculate using worksheet on page 3): $ _
Appeal Fee to be collected when form is submitted. Failure to pay the
appropriate fee may cause your appeal to be rejected.
Office Use Only
Staff initial for collection of fee Date received .___._
8 In-person Hearing. Optional
I wish to have my appeal heard on the record, so I do not need to attend an in-person hearing. I understand I may submit
evidence in support of my appeal up to ten (10) days in advance of the day of review for my appeal and that I will receive written
notice of when that day of review for my appeal will be.
To waive your right to an in-person hearing, initial here: _
9
10
If different that the address listed in #2 above, all future notices from the City relating to this appeal should be mailed to the
following Ofikial Mailing Add<essc ~s ma1tl ~
erjury under the laws of the State of California that all of the facts stated in this appeal are true, and
~=-,-.,,.--: cuted
11
Place of Signature
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to: City Clerk's Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to: City Clerk’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Administrative Citation Appeal Form
Form must be received by the City Clerk within 10 days of date of citation to be considered timely filed.
If no appeal is filed within ten days, the administrative citation shall be deemed final. SLMC§1.24.100(A).
Revised and Published: 7/1/2025
PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS STARTING ON PAGE 2 BEFORE COMPLETING
Address of Citation: 1 Date of Citation:
ADM or Other Cite Number:
Municipal Code Section(s) Cited:
Municipal Code Section(s) Appealed:
2 Appellant Name(s): Appellant Mailing Address(es):
Appellant Phone(s):
Appellant email address(es):
3 If applicable
Business Name: Business License #
4 Appellant Cited As: Mark only one
_____ Individual or Business _____ Owner of property or building _____ Tenant being held financially
responsible for landlord citation
5 Reason for appeal. Attach additional pages as necessary.
6 Election of Appeal Process.
Choose One. Election is final.
7 Appeal Fee. (calculate using worksheet on page 3): $ _______________
_____ Construction Board of Appeals Appeal Fee to be collected when form is submitted. Failure to pay the
appropriate fee may cause your appeal to be rejected. _____ Administrative Review Board
_____ Hearing Officer
Office Use Only
Staff initial for collection of fee _____ Date received ____________
8 In-person Hearing. Optional
I wish to have my appeal heard on the record, so I do not need to attend an in-person hearing. I understand I may submit
evidence in support of my appeal up to ten (10) days in advance of the day of review for my appeal and that I will receive written
notice of when that day of review for my appeal will be.
To waive your right to an in-person hearing, initial here: _______
9 If different that the address listed in #2 above, all future notices from the City relating to this appeal should be mailed to the
following Official Mailing Address:
10 Truth of Appeal.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all of the facts stated in this appeal are true, and
that this appeal form was executed on:
________________________________ ____________________ ______________________________, California
Signature of Appellant or Representative Date of Signature Place of Signature
11 Representative. If applicable, Legal counsel or agent of Appellant
Name and Capacity: Address:
Phone:
Email address:
Page 2
Administrative Citation Appeal Form Instructions
Questions about this form or the appeal process should be directed to the City Attorney’s Office
Email: City_Attorney@slocity.org, Phone: (805)781-7140
1. Citation Details: Describe the administrative citation received (that you are appealing) with as much detail as possible. The
specific information required by the Municipal Code is listed in the form, but any identifying information you provide will
assist staff to quickly complete the initial intake processing of your request to appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Section 1.24.100(C)(3)(a-b).
2. Appellant Details: Whether cited as an individual, business owner, property/building owner, or are being held financially
responsible as a tenant for a citation issued to your landlord, all contact information you wish to provide to the City should
be entered here. If there is more than one appellant, attach additional pages and provide the contact information for every
appellant. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(1).
3. Citation Issued to a Business: For an appeal of a citation issued directly to a business (e.g. failure to timely renew a business
license), please provide the additional information in part 3 of this form . The Business Name and License number should
be on the renewal notice, administrative citation, or other notifications.
4. Interest in Citation: For an administrative citation issued to an individual, only that specific person may submit an appeal.
Any appeal submitted by a roommate, family member, etc., on behalf of the individual cited, will be rejected. For appeals
issued to a property or building, the owner or their agent may submit an appeal, as well as any tenant who is being held
contractually, financially responsible for the property citation. Any legal representative or other agent of the appellant
should provide their own contact details in part 11 of this form. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(2).
5. Reason for Appeal: Give a brief statement of why you are appealing, the relief or action sought, and why the administrative
citation should be revoked, modified or otherwise set aside. The AMOUNT of the fine cannot be reduced on appeal. Attach
additional pages as necessary, and include any audio, video, photographic, or other supporting evidence you wish to
provide. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(3)(c).
6. Election of Appeal Process: Only one appeal process may be chosen, and once chosen, the election is final. San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(c).
All citations that include a violation of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (building and related codes), even if
other non-Title 15 code violations are also cited, must be appealed to th e Construction Board of Appeals. San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(1).
For citations that do not include a violation of Title 15, you must make a choice between:
• Administrative Review Board: If you wish to retain your right to challenge the administrative citation, or any final
city action related to the citation, in court by any writ action, you must appeal to the Administrative Review Board
for a more formal, comprehensive hearing to ensure preparation of an adequate administrative record. Should you
wish to then challenge that board’s decision in court, you will need to file a petition for writ with the Superior Court,
which may require the services of an attorney to prepare, and will require payment of the City’s costs to prepare
the administrative record. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(b).
• Hearing Officer: An expedited, less formal appeal process to a city hearing officer, whose final decision may be
appealed directly to the superior court for de novo review pursuant to California Government Code Section
53069.4. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(a).
For citations that do not include a violation of Title 15, failure to request a hearing before the Administrative Review Board
will result in the appeal being assigned to a Hearing Officer and will constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies
for purposes of any subsequently filed writ action. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(4).
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to:
City Clerk’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Page 3
7. Appeal Fee. Every path of appeal requires payment of a fee due at the time your appeal is submitted. Once your appeal is
determined to be complete, timely and valid, the fee is non-refundable as it is recovery of a percentage of the cost to bring
your appeal to hearing, regardless of the outcome. Fees are adopted by City Council resolution and updated annually.
Use the chart below to properly determine or calculate your appeal fee. If you are appealing for Hearing Officer Review
and cannot determine the amount of your fine(s), please contact the City Attorney’s Office by phone (805)781-7140 or
email city_attorney@slocity.org, and support staff will be able to assist you:
Construction Board of Appeals, Title 15 violations Fees effective 7/1/2025
Minor: related to an Alteration/Addition of an existing Single-Family or Accessory Dwelling Unit
(including duplexes), a demolition permit, or any item permitted under the “Additional Building
Fees” schedule
$636.54
Moderate: related to all other permits that are processed under the alteration/addition work class,
New Single-Family permits (including duplexes), and New Accessory Dwelling Unit permits
$1,139.18
Major: related to anything that doesn’t fall into one of the other two categories $2,011.59
Administrative Review Board $652
Hearing Officer review, capped at $109.18 but could be less depending on the amount of your fine
Amount of fine(s) being appealed:
(1)
25% of fine(s): amount in (1) multiplied by 0.25
(2)
Cost Recovery Appeal Fee Cap: (3) $109.18
Your appeal fee: whichever is less of (2) & (3)
$
Payment by check should be made out to the “City of San Luis Obispo.” Payment by credit card can be facilitated by the
Finance Department1 and should be completed prior to submission of your appeal form, with a copy of the payment receipt
attached to the form. Any appeal received without payment of the proper fee may be rejected.
8. In-Person Hearing : It is your right, no matter which appeal process you choose, to have an in-person hearing for your
appeal. However, you are under no obligation to appear. If you choose, you may elect to have your appeal reviewed on the
record (all the documents, pictures, etc. submitted by yourself or the City). San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.110(F).
This review on the record will occur on or after a certain date and you will receive written notice of the date of review for
your appeal. If you choose to participate in an in-person hearing, you will receive a written notice of hearing. San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.110(B).
9. Official Mailing Address: The Municipal Code requires certain notices be sent via U.S. Mail and so, while courtesy
notifications may be sent via email or to other addresses, you are required to provide one official mailing address for your
appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.100(C)(5).
10. Signature: The step most commonly missed in the appeal process (and the most common reason for rejection of a timely
appeal) is failure to sign the appeal and declare the facts stated in the appeal to be true. The form provides a signature
block for this purpose but if there are multiple appellants, all must sign a declaration. Any additional declarations can be
attached as additional pages. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.100(C)(5).
11. Representative of Appellant: Any legal representative or other agent assisting with the preparation of the appeal or who
intends to appear at the hearing, must provide their contact information and relationship to the appellant.
1 Finance Department staff are available by phone (805)781-7124 and at the public counter, downstairs at City Hall (990 Palm
Street), Monday – Thursday, 8:00am – 4:00pm
A - Revis ~~~ Administrative Citation Appeal Form
Form must be received by the City Clerk within 10 days of date of citation to be c
If no appeal is filed within ten days, the administrative citation shall be deemed fina
_!_ MAR 11--2026
PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS STARTING ON PAGE 2 BEFORE COMPLETING
1 Date of Citation: {l-.l1·-~ 1t;,-;JJJ;J/5
ADM or Other Cite Number: (LO Ot ::-OtiJ ~ Q ;[{],
Municipal Code Section(s) Cited: ~~~'/,I .·~I
Municipal Code Section(s) Appealed: Ll.n pe._rrvfr\\eLJ (;(_&l,,
Address of Citation: (!2_J.g'l3 (:) rd~+
~t'\ l\illS 6ia l6(JO
2
3 If applicable 'C/
Business Name: Business License #
4 Appellant Cited As: Mark only one
-/- Individual or Business __ Owner of property or building __ Tenant being held financially
responsible for landlord citation
5
6 Election of Ap peal Pro cess.
Choose One. Election is final.
~ Construction Board of Appeals
Administrative Review Board
-/:,..- Hearing Officer
7
Appeal Fee to be collected when form is submitted. Failure to pay the
appro priate fee ,nay cause your appea l to be reject ed.
8 In-perso n Hearing. Optional
I wish to have my appeal heard on the record, so I do not need to attend an in-person hearing. I understand I may submit
evidence in support ofmy appeal up to ten (10) days in advance of the day of review for my appeal and that I will receive written
notice of when that day of review for my appeal will be.
To wa ive your right to an in-perso n hearing, initial here: _
9 If different that the address listed in #2 above, all future notices from the City relating to this appeal should be mailed to the
following Official Mailing Address:
10 Truth of Appea l.
t declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all of the facts stated in this appeal are true, and
that this ,----r-..- e ted o
11 Represe ntative. If applicable, Legal counsel or agent of Appellant
Name and Capacity:
Phone:
Email address:
0(£, lk/4·":d Place of Signature
, Califomia
Address:
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to: City Clerk's Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 934.01
Once filled out entirely and signed, em ail your form to CityClerk@ slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by m ail to:
City Clerk's O ff ice, 990 Palm Street, San Luis O bispo, CA 93401
7. Appeal Fee. Every path of appeal requires payment of a fee due at the time your appeal is submitted. Once your appeal is
determined to be complete, timely and valid, the fee is non-refundable as it is recovery of a percentage of the cost to bring
your appeal to hearing, regardless of the outcome. Fees are adopted by City Council resolution and updated annually.
Use the chart below to properly determine or calculate your appeal fee. If you are appealing for Hearing Officer Review
and cannot determine the amount of your fine(s), please contact the City Attorney's Office by phone (805)781-7140 or
email city attorney@slocity.org, and support staff will be able to assist you:
Construction Board of Appeals, Title 15 violations Fees effective 7/1/2025
Minor: related to an Alteration/Addition of an existing Single-Family or Accessory Dwelling Unit $636.54
(including duplexes), a demolition permit, or any item permitted under the "Additional Building
Fees" schedule
Moderate: related to all other permits that are processed under the alteration/addition work class, $1,139.18
New Single-Family permits (including duplexes), and New Accessory Dwelling Unit permits
Major: related to anything that doesn't fall into one of the other two categories $2,011.59
Administrative Review Board -
Hearing Officer review, capped at $109.18 but could be less depending on the amount of your fine
Amount offine(s) being appealed: (1) ) , ooO
25% of fine(s): amount in (1) multiplied by 0.25 (2) ~50
Cost Recovery Appeal Fee Cap: I (3) $109.18
Your appeal fee: whichever is less of (2} & (3} $ 109. \1
Payment by check should be made out to the "City of San Luis Obispo." Payment by credit card can be facilitated by the
Finance Department1 and should be completed prior to submission of your appeal form, with a copy of the payment receipt
attached to the form. Any appeal received without payment of the proper fee may be rejected.
8. In-Person Hearing: It is your right, no matter which appeal process you choose, to have an in-person hearing for your
appeal. However, you are under no obligation to appear. If you choose, you may elect to have your appeal reviewed on the
record (all the documents, pictures, etc. submitted by yourself or the City). San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24. llO(F).
This review on the record will occur on or after a certain date and you will receive written notice of the date of review for
your appeal. If you choose to participate in an in-person hearing, you will receive a written notice of hearing. San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.ll0(B).
9. Official Mailing Address: The Municipal Code requires certain notices be sent via U.S. Mail and so, while courtesy
notifications may be sent via email or to other addresses, you are required to provide one official mailing address for your
appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.100(C)(5).
10. Signature: The step most commonly missed in the appeal process (and the most common reason for rejection of a timely
appeal) is failure to sign the appeal and declare the facts stated in the appeal to be true. The form provides a signature
block for this purpose but if there are multiple appellants, all must sign a declaration. Any additional declarations can be
attached as additional pages. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.lO0(C)(S).
11. Representative of Appellant: Any legal representative or other agent assisting with the preparation of the appeat or who
intends to appear at the hearing, must provide their contact information and relationship to the appellant.
1 Finance Department staff are available by phone (805)781-7124 and at the public counter, downstairs at City Hall (990 Palm
Street), Monday- Thursday, 8:00am - 4:00pm
Page 3
Docusign Envelope ID: E88 D7 AC5-EEA6-4 41 E-9A 12-SA 1188011 D89
RESIDENTIAL LEASE AGREEMENT
This is a legally binding contract, please read it carefully. You may also wish to seek competent legal advice.
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is made between _Hillview Carson City LLC. __ ,
executed by its Agent __ Lisa Dorcich (hereinafter called "Landlord"), and __ Omar
Rahmat, Jackson Miller, Caden Van Court, Josh Schneider, Jay Sickels, Collin Ng (collectively called
"Tenant"). As agent, Lisa Dorcich or Kim Zankich shall have full authority from the property owner to execute
and enforce this lease agreement. Tenant must sign all exhibits to this Agreement and each Tenant shall
provide an executed Guaranty Agreement. Pursuant to Landlord's sole discretion, tenancy is subject to all
Tenants returning the Guaranty Agreement (herein attached as "Exhibit A", which is part of this Agreement)
properly executed by a parent or guardian by __ 01/28/2025 _
IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL PROMISES, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. TERM
Landlord leases and demises to Tenant the property located at_ 1218 Bond Street, San Luis Obispo,
CA __ (hereinafter called "the Premises") a _6_ person maximum residence occupancy. The term
of this lease shall commence on _August 5, 2025 , or sooner if Landlord gives twenty-four (24)
hour written notice of availability to the Contact Person (as defined below) and ends at noon on _July
13, 2026 . The commencement date is approximate and may need to be adjusted
according to work being performed on the Premises. Tenant may terminate this Agreement if
possession is not delivered on or before August 15, 2025 _
2. RENT
Tenant agrees that the Premises shall not be used in any manner as a fraternity or sorority house.
INITIALS ~~· 0: ~ [~r(c- ~~
Tenant ag.reei ~nd colv.enants to pay rent in the amount 01 ! I[ I it\ C • C IJ • C '"'t;f u• Dollars fib L be received in equal monthly installments paid in advance on the us day
of each month in-the amount of$ tit f ! per month to Landlord, through the online
Buildium payment portal. Landlord reserv!s 8the right to require payment of rent by check, certified
funds or cash. Tenant understands and agrees that Rent shall be for the full months of
_September 2025 through _June 2026 and the partial months of
_August __ 2025 and _July __ 2026.
Rent is in consideration for _6_ persons. If additional people reside at the Premises that are not
specifically identified on this Agreement, then Tenant shall pay Thirteen Hundred Dollars ($1,300.00)
per month for each additional person at the Premises. Because of the difficulty in determining the
beginning of an unpermitted occupancy, Tenant agrees that payment of the Thirteen Hundred Dollars
($1,300.00) per month shall begin on the first month of this Agreement. Tenant and Landlord agree
that the $1,300.00 per month per any person not identified on this Agreement is fair market rent.
Evidence of an unpermitted occupancy shall include but not be limited to beds, vehicles, receipt of
mail at the Premises, etc., and shall be determined in Landlord's sole discretion.
CT;' Co. N]s c~~c y(z:k INITIALS
Tenant acknowledges that if any portion of the rent is delinquent, then it shallrender the entire payment
delinquent and subject to the late payment penalty outlined below. rr;· 0: ~Ci c~t1;c· 'v[~ INITIALS
3. LATE CHARGES
If for any reason, including insufficient funds, the entire amount of Rent due from Tenant is not received
by Landlord on the third day of the month by 5:00 p.m. then Tenant agrees to pay the Landlord
D o c u s ig n E n v e lo p e ID : B 36 6 B 5 8 8-8 1 E B -4 0 7 3-8 A 2 A -5 55 A F 5 F B C 6 1 C
25. Any repair deductions that are Tenants responsibility will be shared equally
between 1218 Bond Street and 1220 Bond Street. Landlord will deduct fees equally
between each deposit.
26. Deductions from deposit at end of lease for cleaning, painting, repairs, etc., will be
shared and deducted equally between 1218 Bond Street and 1220 Bond Street leases.
27. Only 2 people at once may go onto the balcony at 1220 Bond Street.
28. Do not put ''flushable wipes" down toilets.
29. If there is a leak at property tenant shall notify landlord immediately. If tenant does
not notify landlord, tenant is responsible for amount due to utility company.
30. Tenant agrees to only park in paved driveway/garage area of property.
31. It is agreed that absolutely no fraternity and/or sorority events, affiliations, signs,
flags, meetings, coffees, dinners, get togethers, parties, etc., will be on the property,
held on the property, or inside the house. This property is being leased to individual
people, joint and severally. Should any of the above occur at this site, this would be a
breach of lease and could result in eviction with total lease term of rent still due to
landlord.
2/3/2025
Tenant
2/3/2025 1/24/2025 ··1/24/2025
Date
2/4/2025
Hillview Carson City LLC Manager, Lisa Dorcich or Kim Zankich Date
C i t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o F i n a n c e
9 9 0 P a l m S t r e e t
S a n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1
(8 0 5 ) 7 8 1 -7 1 2 4 w w w .s l o c i t y .o r g
T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r p a y m e n t .
H a v e a n i c e d a y !
W e d n e s d a y M a r 1 1 2 0 2 6 1 0 :0 3 :4 5 AM
A dm in C i t a t io n Ap p e a l Fee (A CAF )
HILLVIEW CARSON CITY LLC, 1218 BO 109.18
To t a l
Check
10 9 .1 8
109.18
Received From: 1218 BOND APPEAL
Receipt#: finance-03112026-7
Cashier: Maryanna Espejo-Moses
From:K Z
To:Belghoul, Amel
Cc:Kimberly Zankich
Subject:Re: Receipt of Administrative Citation Appeal - Zankich
Date:Thursday, April 9, 2026 11:32:51 AM
Great. Thank you for the quick response
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 9, 2026, at 11:00 AM, Belghoul, Amel <ABelghou@slocity.org> wrote:
Hello Kim,
The notice of hearing should be sent next week. We are looking at 4/29 date at
1:30pm. The notice will confirm the date and time.
Thank you,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant I
City Attorney's Office
E ABelghou@slocity.org
T 805.781.7555
From: k <
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 10:44 AM
To: Belghoul, Amel <ABelghou@slocity.org>
Cc: Kimberly Zankich <
Subject: Re: Receipt of Administrative Citation Appeal - Zankich
Amel,
It's been about a month since our last correspondence.
Can you please give us a date that the hearing will be for the below at
1218 Bond St. in San Luis Obispo.
Thank you.
Kim Zankich
Lisa Dorcich
Managers
On Thursday, March 12, 2026 at 01:26:12 PM PDT, Belghoul, Amel
<abelghou@slocity.org> wrote:
Kim Zankich:On March 11, 2026, the City of San Luis Obispo received yourAdministrative Citation Appeal Form for the citation issued to you onFebruary 24, 2026. A hearing on your appeal will be scheduled as soonas there is an opening in the calendar of the volunteer hearing officer.You will be notified in writing of the hearing date as required by the SanLuis Obispo Municipal Code.Payment of your fine is on hold until the hearing officer has issued adecision.
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant I
City Attorney's Office
E ABelghou@slocity.org
T 805.781.7555
From: K Z <
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 6:08 PM
To: Belghoul, Amel <ABelghou@slocity.org>
Cc: Kimberly Zankich <
Subject: Re: Reject to Correct - Zankich
Amel
We will get this back to you
Thank you!
Kim & Lisa
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 9, 2026, at 10:41 AM, Belghoul, Amel
<ABelghou@slocity.org> wrote:
Kim Kankich:
Please see the attached. Should you wish to confirm the amount
of your citation, you may contact this office and provide the
citation reference number along with the applicable municipal
code section cited.
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant I
<image001.png>
City Attorney's Office
E ABelghou@slocity.org
T 805.781.7555
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
The information contained in this e-mail message is
intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated
addressee named above. The information transmitted is
subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents
confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not
file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If
you are not the designated addressee named above or the
authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the
designated addressee, you received this document through
inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication by you or
anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US
IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED
ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you.
PROOF OF SERVICE
- 1 -
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
I am employed in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. I am over the age of
18, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California 93401.
On April 16, 2026, I caused the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL HEARING to be served on the interested parties in this action
by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes, addressed as follows:
Kim Zankich
Email:
[X] By United States Mail: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope addressed as
indicated above. I am readily familiar with the office’s practice of collection and
processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same
day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served,
service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
than one day after the date of service.
[X] Courtesy Copy by E-mail: I caused this document to be transmitted via e-mail to the e-
mail address listed above.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 16, 2026, at San Luis Obispo, California.
_____________________________
Amel Belghoul
City of San Luis Obispo, City Attorney’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7140, slocity.org
Notice of Hearing Officer Review
Page 1
April 15, 2026
Russell Hutchinson
385 Albert Dr
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Via First Class Mail and Email to:
Re: Notice of Hearing Officer Review
Administrative Citation 42617
To Russell Hutchinson:
On March 05,2026, the City of San Luis Obispo received your appeal of the administrative
citation referenced above.
1. In your appeal, you elected to forgo an in-person hearing before a hearing officer in
favor of that hearing officer’s review of your appeal on the record. This review will
take place no sooner than Wednesday, April 29, 2026
2. Hearing Officer or Board. The hearing officer assigned to your appeal is Sharon
Whitney.
3. Addresses for Communication, Notices, or Requests. Any communications,
notices, or requests to the hearing officer, or to the director of the department that
issued the citation shall be addressed as follows:
City Attorney’s Office
Attn: Amel Belghoul
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Email: city_attorney@slocity.org
Additional information regarding the appeal process may be found in Chapter 1.24 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code which is posted at: https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/.
If the City has included in the administrative record video or audio recordings related to the
citation being appealed, those may be reviewed in their entirety by contacting the staff member
listed below and scheduling a time to review the recordings in-person. No copies will be
provided, and no remote viewing will be facilitated. Any request to review the recordings
must be received at least two (2) business days in advance of your hearing date.
Please note that audio generated in close proximity to the body worn camera microphone is
prioritized over ambient or distant sounds, so the sound from recordings may not accurately
reflect sound as heard by an officer on scene. For more details, please find enclosed a
Notice of Hearing Officer Review
Page 2
notification from the body worn camera manufacturer.
Please call (805)781-7140 or write to city_attorney@slocity.org should you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant
City Attorney’s Office
Enc: Administrative Record
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
12/04/2025
SLO FAMILY LLC
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 385 Albert Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-322-015
Code Case #: CODE-000295-2025
Dear Property Owner,
On September 27th, 2025, 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. 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 affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University
and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings. (SLOMC 17.156.014).
After inspection, an fraternity sponsored event was documented to have occurred on September 26th, 2025
The subject address has been determined to meet 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 Section17.110.030 (Procedure—Minor Use Permit).
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in Section17.110.040 (Procedure—
Conditional Use Permit).
385 Albert Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
12/04/2025
Page 2
A/M The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor
use permit review, the use may be established on the ground floor.
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.
If you choose to request a Director’s review of this Notice as described below, please submit a copy
of the event registration held by the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Life showing the location in
which the event was held on the date cited above.
A COPY OF THIS NOTICE MUST BE ATTACHED TO ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A PERMIT.
ALL REQUIRED WORK MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) immediately. These
violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Any repeated violation of the same code
sections cited in this notice 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
93406, 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) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAMI SALEM
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Officer and Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
12/04/2025
Residents
385 Albert Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 385 Albert Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-322-015
Code Case #: CODE-000295-2025
Dear Property Owner,
On September 27th, 2025, 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. 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 affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University
and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings. (SLOMC 17.156.014).
After inspection, an fraternity sponsored event was documented to have occurred on September 26th, 2025
The subject address has been determined to meet 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 Section17.110.030 (Procedure—Minor Use Permit).
CUP The use requires a conditional use permit approved by the planning
commission, as provided in Section17.110.040 (Procedure—
Conditional Use Permit).
385 Albert Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
12/04/2025
Page 2
A/M The use is allowed above the ground floor only. Subject to minor
use permit review, the use may be established on the ground floor.
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.
If you choose to request a Director’s review of this Notice as described below, please submit a copy
of the event registration held by the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Life showing the location in
which the event was held on the date cited above.
A COPY OF THIS NOTICE MUST BE ATTACHED TO ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A PERMIT.
ALL REQUIRED WORK MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) immediately. These
violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Any repeated violation of the same code
sections cited in this notice 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
93406, 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) 440-9825 or rsalem@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
RAMI SALEM
Rami Salem, Code Enforcement Officer and Safe Housing Coordinator
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
385 Albert Dr
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
RELATED CE CASE: CODE-000295-2025 DATE CITATION ISSUED: 02/26/2026
Citation No.: 00042617
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
AND ORDER TO COMPLY WITH
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
1st Citation 2nd Citation 3rd Citation Additional / Daily Fines
ADDRESS OF VIOLATION: 385 Albert Dr San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 APN: 052-322-015
DATE OF VIOLATION: 1/30/2026
NAME: SLO FAMILY LLC
ADDRESS:
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.24 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE, YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED
TO IMMEDIATELY CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) DESCRIBED BELOW AND PAY THE FINE. YOU ARE
FURTHER ORDERED TO CEASE THE ACTIVITY GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATION. WHEN CORRECTIONS
ARE COMPLETE PLEASE SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION BY CALLING (805)781-7180. TO AVOID ADDITIONAL
FINES COMPLIANCE MUST BE VERIFIED BY DEPARTMENT STAFF. IF DAILY FINES APPLY AS NOTED
ABOVE, THE FINES SHALL ACCRUE DAILY UNTIL THE VIOLATION(S) ARE CORRECTED. FAILURE TO
CORRECT THE VIOLATION(S) WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE
CITATIONS AND ESCALATING FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION FINE
MC§17.10.20 Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses – Unpermitted Use $100.00
MC§17.10.20 Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses – Unpermitted Use $500.00
MC§17.10.20 Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses – Unpermitted Use $1,000.00
MC§17.10.20 Use regulations by zone. Allowed uses – Unpermitted Use $1,000.00
Amount Due (or subtotal if daily fine) $2,600.00
Failure to pay the fines may result in the suspension of any pending applications or permits. Unpaid fines
become delinquent after 30 days and are subject to interest accrual of 8% per month as contained in
SLOMC 1.24.070 C. The City may pursue all legal, equitable, and administrative remedies for
the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. Delinquent fines will be forwarded to a collection agency
for payment.
Mail Payments to: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
You may file an APPEAL of this Administrative Citation by submitting a request in writing to the
Hearing Administrator within ten days of the date this Administrative Citation is issued as shown below.
Each responsible party is individually required to file an appeal. FAILURE TO FILE AN APPEAL
WILL WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS CITATION. Please see the attached Appeal Form
for more information.
Mail Appeals to: City of San Luis Obispo, City Clerk
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Issued By: R.Salem Signature: RAMI SALEM Title: Code Enforcement Officer
INVOICE (00042617)
FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BILLING CONTACT
INACTIVE
SLO FAMILY LLC
INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE INVOICE DUE DATE INVOICE STATUS INVOICE DESCRIPTION
00042617 02/26/2026 03/28/2026 NONEDue
REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME TOTAL
CODE-000295-2025 CE 1st Admin Citation $100.00
CE 2nd Admin Citation $500.00
CE 3rd Admin Citation $1,000.00
CE Additional Admin $1,000.00
$2,600.00 SUBTOTAL385 Albert Dr San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
TOTAL $2,600.00 REMITTANCE INFORMATION
Report Text Library: Municipality_Invoice_Remit_To
Address Line 2
Address Line 3
Address Line 4
*00042617*
City of San Luis ObispoFebruary 26, 2026 Page 1 of 1
Declaration of Service and Posting of Notice
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 385 Albert Dr San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
CASE NO.: CODE-000295-2025 Citation No.: 00042617 Officer: R. Salem
I/we, the undersigned, declare that at all times herein mentioned, I/we were and now are a duly authorized
employee(s) of the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo, State of California; that
pursuant to Section 1.24.050G of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC), Section 1101.4 of the
Uniform Housing Code, or Section 401.4 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as
adopted by Section 15.02.010 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I/we deposited in a receptacle for the
U.S. Postal Service, in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, by regular mail, and/or certified mail, return
receipt requested the following:
A Notice to Correct,
Notice of Violation,
Administrative Citation,
Stop-Work Notice,
Notice of Hearing,
Notice of Proposed Lien,
Notice of Special Assessment
Notifying the owner of the property of the subject address referenced above of violations of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code existing on the property and/or of related abatement proceedings.
The above notice was sent to each person having an interest in the property at their respective addresses as
listed in the Notice, and a copy of the notice was posted at the subject address.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 26th day of FEBRUARY, 2026, San Luis Obispo, California
Officer or clerk effecting service by mail:
Rami Salem Rami Salem 2/26/2026
(Print Name) (Signature) (Time/date)
Officer effecting service by posting:
Rami Salem Rami Salem0 2/26/2026
(Print Name) (Signature) (Time/date)
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to: City Clerk’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Administrative Citation Appeal Form
Form must be received by the City Clerk within 10 days of date of citation to be considered timely filed.
If no appeal is filed within ten days, the administrative citation shall be deemed final. SLMC§1.24.100(A).
Revised and Published: 7/1/2025
PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS STARTING ON PAGE 2 BEFORE COMPLETING
Address of Citation: 1 Date of Citation:
ADM or Other Cite Number:
Municipal Code Section(s) Cited:
Municipal Code Section(s) Appealed:
2 Appellant Name(s): Appellant Mailing Address(es):
Appellant Phone(s):
Appellant email address(es):
3 If applicable
Business Name: Business License #
4 Appellant Cited As: Mark only one
_____ Individual or Business _____ Owner of property or building _____ Tenant being held financially
responsible for landlord citation
5 Reason for appeal. Attach additional pages as necessary.
6 Election of Appeal Process.
Choose One. Election is final.
7 Appeal Fee. (calculate using worksheet on page 3): $ _______________
_____ Construction Board of Appeals Appeal Fee to be collected when form is submitted. Failure to pay the
appropriate fee may cause your appeal to be rejected. _____ Administrative Review Board
_____ Hearing Officer
Office Use Only
Staff initial for collection of fee _____ Date received ____________
8 In-person Hearing. Optional
I wish to have my appeal heard on the record, so I do not need to attend an in-person hearing. I understand I may submit
evidence in support of my appeal up to ten (10) days in advance of the day of review for my appeal and that I will receive written
notice of when that day of review for my appeal will be.
To waive your right to an in-person hearing, initial here: _______
9 If different that the address listed in #2 above, all future notices from the City relating to this appeal should be mailed to the
following Official Mailing Address:
10 Truth of Appeal.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all of the facts stated in this appeal are true, and
that this appeal form was executed on:
________________________________ ____________________ ______________________________, California
Signature of Appellant or Representative Date of Signature Place of Signature
11 Representative. If applicable, Legal counsel or agent of Appellant
Name and Capacity: Address:
Phone:
Email address:
Page 2
Administrative Citation Appeal Form Instructions
Questions about this form or the appeal process should be directed to the City Attorney’s Office
Email: City_Attorney@slocity.org, Phone: (805)781-7140
1. Citation Details: Describe the administrative citation received (that you are appealing) with as much detail as possible. The
specific information required by the Municipal Code is listed in the form, but any identifying information you provide will
assist staff to quickly complete the initial intake processing of your request to appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Section 1.24.100(C)(3)(a-b).
2. Appellant Details: Whether cited as an individual, business owner, property/building owner, or are being held financially
responsible as a tenant for a citation issued to your landlord, all contact information you wish to provide to the City should
be entered here. If there is more than one appellant, attach additional pages and provide the contact information for every
appellant. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(1).
3. Citation Issued to a Business: For an appeal of a citation issued directly to a business (e.g. failure to timely renew a business
license), please provide the additional information in part 3 of this form . The Business Name and License number should
be on the renewal notice, administrative citation, or other notifications.
4. Interest in Citation: For an administrative citation issued to an individual, only that specific person may submit an appeal.
Any appeal submitted by a roommate, family member, etc., on behalf of the individual cited, will be rejected. For appeals
issued to a property or building, the owner or their agent may submit an appeal, as well as any tenant who is being held
contractually, financially responsible for the property citation. Any legal representative or other agent of the appellant
should provide their own contact details in part 11 of this form. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(2).
5. Reason for Appeal: Give a brief statement of why you are appealing, the relief or action sought, and why the administrative
citation should be revoked, modified or otherwise set aside. The AMOUNT of the fine cannot be reduced on appeal. Attach
additional pages as necessary, and include any audio, video, photographic, or other supporting evidence you wish to
provide. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(3)(c).
6. Election of Appeal Process: Only one appeal process may be chosen, and once chosen, the election is final. San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(c).
All citations that include a violation of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (building and related codes), even if
other non-Title 15 code violations are also cited, must be appealed to th e Construction Board of Appeals. San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(1).
For citations that do not include a violation of Title 15, you must make a choice between:
• Administrative Review Board: If you wish to retain your right to challenge the administrative citation, or any final
city action related to the citation, in court by any writ action, you must appeal to the Administrative Review Board
for a more formal, comprehensive hearing to ensure preparation of an adequate administrative record. Should you
wish to then challenge that board’s decision in court, you will need to file a petition for writ with the Superior Court,
which may require the services of an attorney to prepare, and will require payment of the City’s costs to prepare
the administrative record. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(b).
• Hearing Officer: An expedited, less formal appeal process to a city hearing officer, whose final decision may be
appealed directly to the superior court for de novo review pursuant to California Government Code Section
53069.4. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(B)(2)(a).
For citations that do not include a violation of Title 15, failure to request a hearing before the Administrative Review Board
will result in the appeal being assigned to a Hearing Officer and will constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies
for purposes of any subsequently filed writ action. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.100(C)(4).
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to:
City Clerk’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Page 3
7. Appeal Fee. Every path of appeal requires payment of a fee due at the time your appeal is submitted. Once your appeal is
determined to be complete, timely and valid, the fee is non-refundable as it is recovery of a percentage of the cost to bring
your appeal to hearing, regardless of the outcome. Fees are adopted by City Council resolution and updated annually.
Use the chart below to properly determine or calculate your appeal fee. If you are appealing for Hearing Officer Review
and cannot determine the amount of your fine(s), please contact the City Attorney’s Office by phone (805)781-7140 or
email city_attorney@slocity.org, and support staff will be able to assist you:
Construction Board of Appeals, Title 15 violations Fees effective 7/1/2025
Minor: related to an Alteration/Addition of an existing Single-Family or Accessory Dwelling Unit
(including duplexes), a demolition permit, or any item permitted under the “Additional Building
Fees” schedule
$636.54
Moderate: related to all other permits that are processed under the alteration/addition work class,
New Single-Family permits (including duplexes), and New Accessory Dwelling Unit permits
$1,139.18
Major: related to anything that doesn’t fall into one of the other two categories $2,011.59
Administrative Review Board $652
Hearing Officer review, capped at $109.18 but could be less depending on the amount of your fine
Amount of fine(s) being appealed:
(1)
25% of fine(s): amount in (1) multiplied by 0.25
(2)
Cost Recovery Appeal Fee Cap: (3) $109.18
Your appeal fee: whichever is less of (2) & (3)
$
Payment by check should be made out to the “City of San Luis Obispo.” Payment by credit card can be facilitated by the
Finance Department1 and should be completed prior to submission of your appeal form, with a copy of the payment receipt
attached to the form. Any appeal received without payment of the proper fee may be rejected.
8. In-Person Hearing : It is your right, no matter which appeal process you choose, to have an in-person hearing for your
appeal. However, you are under no obligation to appear. If you choose, you may elect to have your appeal reviewed on the
record (all the documents, pictures, etc. submitted by yourself or the City). San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.110(F).
This review on the record will occur on or after a certain date and you will receive written notice of the date of review for
your appeal. If you choose to participate in an in-person hearing, you will receive a written notice of hearing. San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.110(B).
9. Official Mailing Address: The Municipal Code requires certain notices be sent via U.S. Mail and so, while courtesy
notifications may be sent via email or to other addresses, you are required to provide one official mailing address for your
appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.100(C)(5).
10. Signature: The step most commonly missed in the appeal process (and the most common reason for rejection of a timely
appeal) is failure to sign the appeal and declare the facts stated in the appeal to be true. The form provides a signature
block for this purpose but if there are multiple appellants, all must sign a declaration. Any additional declarations can be
attached as additional pages. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.100(C)(5).
11. Representative of Appellant: Any legal representative or other agent assisting with the preparation of the appeal or who
intends to appear at the hearing, must provide their contact information and relationship to the appellant.
1 Finance Department staff are available by phone (805)781-7124 and at the public counter, downstairs at City Hall (990 Palm
Street), Monday – Thursday, 8:00am – 4:00pm
CODE CASE ACTIVITY REPORT CODE-000295-2025
FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Address:Closed Date:In ViolationStatus:385 Albert Dr
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
10/01/2025Opened Date:Rami SalemAssigned ToCode EnforcementCase Type:
Activity Date Created By Activity Type CommentsActivity Name
10/01/2025 Investigation into RUSH event advertised on
social media associated with the fraternity
Theta Chi to occur on 9/27/25. After
inspection of all known locations used as a
fraternity associated with the organization
advertising the event, it was determined that
the event took place at 385 Albert. There is no
use permit for this location to operate as a
fraternity. Inspection was completed on
September 27, 2025 at 1:10 PM by Code
Enforcement staff. During inspection several
individuals were observed in the front yard
area. During RUSH events, fraternity members
are known to be near the entrance of a
property to check-in and/or greet prospective
recruits. Additionally, during the event,
several individuals, many wearing name tags
were observed entering the property. Name
tags are known to be utilized by prospective
recruits while attending advertised RUSH
events. Given an event was advertised from
12PM-3PM on 9/27/25 and, the property has
been previously identified to be used as a
fraternity and, the typical RUSH set up/use of
name tags indicative of a RUSH event was
observed, it was determined that the property
was more likely than not being use as a
fraternity.
InspectionJohn Mezzapesa 9/27/2025
12/04/2025 Generated and mailed copies of notice of
violation to property owner and to the tenants.
Notice of ViolationRami Salem 12/04/2025
02/10/2026 Research found that an event was advertised
on Doorlist to take place on 1/30/2026,. The
social media post, posted by Theta Chi,
included a location for the event (385 Albert).
Given the social media posts showed an
event occurring at the residence and the
property has been previously identified to be
used as a fraternity it was determined that the
property was more likely than not being use
as a fraternity.
ResearchJohn Mezzapesa 1/30/2026
02/26/2026 Generated Admin Cit and miled certified and
first class copies to the property owner, to
the tenant, and posted on site.
Admin CiteRami Salem 02/26/2026
Generated Admin Cit and miled certified and
first class copies to the property owner, to
the tenant, and posted on site.
2nd Admin CiteRami Salem 02/26/2026
Generated Admin Cit and miled certified and
first class copies to the property owner, to
the tenant, and posted on site.
3rd Admin CiteRami Salem 02/26/2026
Page 1 of 2City of San Luis ObispoApril 01, 2026
CODE CASE ACTIVITY REPORT (CODE-000295-2025)
Activity Date Created By Activity Type CommentsActivity Name
Generated Admin Cit and miled certified and
first class copies to the property owner, to
the tenant, and posted on site.
1st Admin CiteRami Salem 2/26/2026
03/11/2026 Research found that events were advertised
on Doorlist to take place on 10/10/25, 11/7/25/
and 11/14/25,. The social media posts, posted
by Theta Chi, included locations for the event
(385 Albert). Given the social media posts
showed an event occurring at the residence
and the property has been previously
identified to be used as a fraternity it was
determined that the property was more likely
than not being use as a fraternity.
ResearchJohn Mezzapesa 2/23/2025
Page 2 of 2City of San Luis ObispoApril 01, 2026
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - ADDENDUM
Use of Event Management Applications (e.g., “DoorList”) as Evidence
I. PURPOSE
This supplemental information addendum is provided to clarify the evidentiary relevance of event
management applications, including but not limited to “DoorList,” in evaluating whether a property is
being used as a fraternity or sorority as defined by the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC).
This addendum is intended to support the administrative record and provide additional context for
evaluating documented evidence.
II. BACKGROUND
SLOMC Section 17.156.014 defines a fraternity or sorority as a residential use involving both:
1. Occupancy by members of a social or educational association, and
2. The occurrence of meetings or gatherings associated with that organization
While the Municipal Code references “meetings or gatherings,” these terms are not explicitly defined.
As such, the City may apply reasonable interpretation and consider comparable frameworks and
evidence in determining whether organized group activity is occurring at a property (see also
Supplemental information sheet RE: Administrative Citation Appeal Hearing (Unpermitted
Fraternities/Sororities).
III. DESCRIPTION OF EVENT MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS
Event management applications, such as “DoorList,” are digital platforms used to organize and manage
events. Within these platforms, event information is primarily created and controlled by designated
“hosts,” which are often accounts utilizing the organization’s name and identifying Greek symbols
rather than an individual user. These host accounts input key event details, including the date, time,
location, and event description, and manage guest access by issuing invitations or approving attendance.
Guests generally do not create or modify event details, but instead respond to invitations, RSVP, or
receive access credentials (e.g., digital passes or QR codes) for entry. As such, the core event
information reflected in the platform is generated and controlled by the hosting organization.
These applications commonly include the following features:
• Creation of events tied to a specific date, time, and location
• Identification of a host organization or group
• Management of guest lists and invitations
• Controlled entry to the property through digital check-in systems (e.g., QR codes)
• Tracking of attendance and participation
These features reflect a structured and coordinated approach to organizing gatherings.
IV. EVIDENTIARY VALUE
A. Evidence of Intentional Use of Property
An event listing within an application such as DoorList demonstrates that:
• A property is identified as the location of a planned event
• The event is scheduled in advance
• The property is being represented as a venue for organized group activity
B. Evidence of Organizational Association
DoorList event listings typically identify:
• The hosting organization (e.g., fraternity or sorority)
• Individuals responsible for organizing or managing the event
This establishes a direct connection between the organization and the use of the property.
C. Evidence of Structured and Coordinated Activity
DoorList events involve a level of coordination that includes:
• Pre-approved guest lists
• Managed invitations
• Controlled access to the premises
These characteristics are consistent with organized meetings or gatherings rather than incidental
residential activity.
D. Evidence of Operational Control
The use of a guest management system demonstrates that event hosts:
• Control access to the property
• Regulate the number and identity of attendees
• Maintain authority over event operations
This supports a finding that the organization exercises control over the premises during events.
V. RELATIONSHIP TO “SANCTIONED EVENT” CRITERIA
California Education Code Section 66312 defines a “sanctioned event” to include events where an
organization’s name is used to advertise or publicize the event, or where the organization is otherwise
associated with the event.
DoorList event listings typically include:
• Use of the organization’s name
• Identification of a specific location
• Management and control of guest attendance (e.g., invitations, guest lists, and entry approval)
These characteristics are consistent with the state law definition of a sanctioned event and provide a
relevant framework for interpreting “meetings or gatherings” under the SLOMC (see SLOMC
17.04.010(B).)
VI. APPLICATION TO LAND USE DETERMINATION
The presence of a DoorList event associated with a residential property supports a determination that the
property is being used for organized gatherings where:
• The event is tied to a specific address
• The event is associated with a fraternity or sorority
• The event reflects structured planning and coordination
Even in the absence of direct observation, such evidence demonstrates that the property is being used, or
intended to be used, as a location for organizational gatherings.
VII. LIMITATIONS AND TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE
A single DoorList event, standing alone, may not establish an ongoing pattern of use. However, it
constitutes evidence of organized activity at a property.
This evidence should be evaluated within the totality of the circumstances, which may include:
• Inspection observations
• Additional event postings
• Repeated use of the property for fraternity or sorority-related events over time
• Other corroborating information
VIII. REASONABLE INFERENCES
Based on the structured nature of DoorList events, it is reasonable to infer that:
• The organization has access to and operational control over the property
• The property functions as a location for organized gatherings
• Individuals affiliated with the organization are residing at or operating from the property, or
otherwise maintaining ongoing control of the site
Such inferences are consistent with standard land use analysis and do not require direct confirmation of
residency in all cases.
IX. CONCLUSION
Event management applications such as DoorList provide reliable evidence of organized fraternity or
sorority activity at a specific property. The structured nature of these platforms—including event
creation, guest management, and controlled entry—demonstrates a level of coordination consistent with
“meetings or gatherings” under the SLOMC.
When evaluated as part of the totality of the evidence, DoorList event records support a determination
that a property is more likely than not being used for fraternity or sorority purposes and may be in
violation of applicable zoning regulations where such use is not permitted or has not been approved
through a Conditional Use Permit.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SHEET
Administrative Citation Appeal Hearing (Unpermitted Fraternities/Sororities)
I. PURPOSE OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
This supplemental information is provided to clarify the evidentiary and legal basis for determining that
the subject property was being used as a fraternity or sorority, as defined by the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (SLOMC), and therefore constitutes a prohibited or unpermitted land use in the
applicable zoning district.
Because the SLOMC definition of a fraternity/sorority includes the occurrence of “meetings or
gatherings,” but does not further define those terms, this document provides an interpretive framework
supported by the City’s Zoning Regulations, observed evidence, and relevant provisions of California
Education Code.
II. APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS
A. Use Regulations by Zone
Pursuant to SLOMC Section 17.10.020, fraternities and sororities:
• Require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the R-3 and R-4 zones
• Are not permitted in R-1 and R-2 zones
Any use not expressly allowed within a zoning district is prohibited (SLOMC 17.10.020(B).)
B. Definition of Fraternity/Sorority
SLOMC Section 17.156.014 defines a fraternity or sorority as:
A residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational
association affiliated and in good standing with California Polytechnic State University, and
where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings.
Accordingly, a property meets this definition when both of the following are present:
1. Residential occupancy by members of the organization, and
2. Meetings or gatherings conducted by the organization
C. Operational Characteristics
SLOMC Section 17.86.130 further regulates fraternities and sororities and explicitly contemplates:
• Limits on number of persons during routine meetings and gatherings
• Requirement for responsible persons during events
These provisions confirm that organized group events are a defining and regulated component of
fraternity/sorority land use.
III. AUTHORITY FOR INTERPRETATION OF UNDEFINED TERMS
Chapter 17.04 of the City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations establishes rules and procedures for
interpreting zoning provisions, including the classification of uses that are not specifically defined, and
SLOMC Section 17.10.020 further provides that where an activity is not explicitly defined in the Zoning
Code, the City may assign the activity to a substantially similar classification.
Because the terms “meetings” and “gatherings” are not defined in the Municipal Code, the City may rely
on relevant regulatory frameworks, including the California Education Code, to interpret whether such
activities are occurring.
IV. EDUCATION CODE GUIDANCE – “SANCTIONED EVENT”
California Education Code Section 66312 (AB 524) defines a “sanctioned event” in the
fraternity/sorority context as an event where one or more of the following occurs:
• The event is recognized by the institution as affiliated with a fraternity or sorority
• The organization’s name is used to advertise or publicize the event
• The organization’s name is displayed at the event
• Organization funds are used for event-related expenses
• The organization receives proceeds from the event
Notably, the use of an organization’s name to advertise or publicize an event is, in itself, a determinative
characteristic of a sanctioned fraternity or sorority event.
V. EVIDENTIARY BASIS AND DOCUMENTATION
The City’s determination that an event occurred is based on a combination of direct observations,
documentary evidence, and reasonable inferences drawn from the totality of the circumstances.
Evidence may include, but is not limited to:
A. Inspection Observations
• Date, time, and location of inspection(s)
• Number of individuals observed on site
• Nature of activity (e.g., organized gathering, coordinated entry, amplified music)
• Presence of event/organization-related indicators (e.g., lighting, signage, security, crowd pattern)
B. Social Media and Publicly Available Information
• Posts advertising events at the subject property
• Identification of an organization associated with the event
• Date, time, and location of advertised gatherings
• Photos or videos depicting the property or event-related activity
C. Correlation of Evidence
• Temporal alignment between inspections and advertised events (when available) (e.g., Event
advertised at 1PM on March 3rd and a gathering is observed at the same date and time)
• Repeated use of the same address by an organization
• Consistency between observed conditions and promoted activities (e.g., football game is
advertised and active football game is observed)
VI. INTERPRETATION OF “MEETINGS OR GATHERINGS”
A. Identification of Events as “Meetings or Gatherings
California Education Code Section 66312 identifies fraternity and sorority activities as “events,”
including those that are organized, promoted, or associated with a specific organization. Pursuant to
SLOMC Section 17.04.010, which allows for the interpretation of undefined terms using relevant
regulatory frameworks, the City may rely on this characterization when interpreting “meetings or
gatherings” under the Municipal Code.
Events identified under the Education Code typically include characteristics such as:
• Being organized or promoted by the association
• Reflecting coordinated group activity
• Demonstrating use of the property beyond typical residential living
• Establishing the presence of an identifiable organization operating at the site
B. Role of Advertised Events
The advertisement of an event by a fraternity or sorority that includes a specific date, time, and
address demonstrates that the property is being used, or intended to be used, for organizational
gatherings associated with that group.
Under California Education Code Section 66312, the use of an organization’s name to advertise
or publicize an event is itself a determinative characteristic of a sanctioned event.
While direct observation of the event may not always be available, the public promotion of such
events at a specific residential property establishes that the site functions as a location for
organized gatherings.
Evidence of advertised events alone may not be dispositive; however, when such advertisements
are repeated, corroborated by independent sources (e.g., social media posts, third-party reports,
or platform-based event listings), or reasonably linked to staff observations at the property, they
provide evidence of “meetings or gatherings” as required under the SLOMC’s definition of a
fraternity or sorority.
VII. REASONABLE INFERENCES REGARDING ORGANIZATIONAL USE
A. Organizational Control and Use of Property
Where an organization advertises events at a specific address, it is reasonable to conclude that:
• The organization exercises control, access, or authority over the property
• The property is used as a central location for group activities
• The use is not incidental, but part of a pattern of organized activity
B. Inference of Residential Component
Direct confirmation of residency or membership affiliation is not always available; however,
land use determinations may rely on reasonable inferences supported by evidence.
Where an organization repeatedly promotes and utilizes a specific residential property for
gatherings, it is reasonable to conclude that:
• Members of the organization are residing at or operating from the property, or
• The property functions as a de facto chapter house or residence
This inference is supported by the operational characteristics of fraternity and sorority
organizations, which commonly use residential properties under member control for both living
and organizational activities.
VIII. TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD
The determination that a property is operating as a fraternity or sorority use is not based on any
single piece of evidence, but rather on the totality of the evidence, including:
• Observed on-site activity
• Documented and advertised events
• Repetition and pattern of use
• Organizational association with the property
When considered together, these factors provide evidence that the property satisfies both elements of
the SLOMC definition:
1. Residential use by members, and
2. Meetings or gatherings conducted by the organization
IX. CONCLUSION
The City’s Zoning Regulations authorize interpretation of undefined terms and classification of
land uses based on substantial similarity. The Education Code definition of a “sanctioned event”
provides a clear and appropriate framework for identifying fraternity or sorority-related
gatherings.
Evidence including advertised events, observed activity, and patterns of use demonstrates that
the subject property functions as a location for organized fraternity or sorority gatherings. When
combined with reasonable inferences regarding residential use, the totality of the evidence
supports the determination that the property was operating as a fraternity or sorority use as
defined by the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Accordingly, the use constitutes a violation of SLOMC Section 17.10.020 where such use is not
allowed or has not been approved through a Conditional Use Permit.
1
2
Administrative Citation Appeal Form
Form must be received by the City Clerk within 10 days of date of citation to be c n;id�ti��1lRl�. If no appeal is filed within ten days, the administrative citation shall be deemed fin . �G•mel�tllt-
PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS STARTING ON PAGE 2 BEFORE COMPLETING
Date of Citation: 02/26/2026ADM or Other Cite Number: 00042617 Municipal Code Section(s) Cited: SLOMC 17.10.020 Mu nicipal Code Section(s) Appealed: SLOMC 17.10.020
Appellant Name{s): Russell Hutchinson Appellant Phone(s): Appellant email address{es):
Address of Citation: 385 Albert Dr, San Luis Obispo, 93405
Appellant Mailing Address(es):
385 Albert Dr, San Luis Obispo, 93405
3 If applicable Business Name: Business License # 4 Appellant Cited As: Mark only oneIndividual or Business __ Owner of property or building _x_Tenant being held financially responsible for landlord citation 5 Reason for appeal. Attach additional pages as necessary.
6
See Additional Page.
Election of Appeal Process.
Choose One. Election is final. __ Construction Board of Appeals Administrative Review Board _x_ Hearing Officer
7 Appeal Fee. (calculate using worksheet on page 3): $ _1'--'0'--'9'-._18.c,__ __ _ Appeal Fee to be collected when form is submitted. Failure to pay the
appropriate fee may cause your appeal to be rejected.
8 In-person Hearing. Optional I wish to have my appeal heard on the record, so I do not need to attend an in-person hearing. I understand I may submit evidence in support of my appeal up to ten (10) days in advance of the day of review for my appeal and that I w�ill re ive written notice of when that day of review for my appeal will be.
To waive your right to an in-person hearing, initial here: __ _
9 If different that the address listed in #2 above, all future notices from the City relating to this appeal should be mailed to the following Official Mailing Address:
10 Truth of Appeal.
11
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all of the facts stated in this appeal are true, and that this <li'!il@,i�
Signature of Appellant or Representative Date of Signature
Representative. If applicable, legal counsel or agent of Appellant Name and Capacity: Phone: Email address:
�S�tllLQ.L-..:C..L-""uC...::1:5....____,,0......,b:;__1 ...... sf_O,_,_____,, California Place of Signature
Address:
Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org Or deliver in person or by mail to: City Clerk's Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
AB 3/5/26
.. Once filled out entirely and signed, email your form to CityClerk@slocity.org
Or deliver in person or by mail to:
City Clerk's Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
7. Appeal Fee. Every path of appeal requires payment of a fee due at the time your appeal is submitted. Once your appeal is
determined to be complete, timely and valid, the fee is non-refundable as it is recovery of a percentage of the cost to bring
your appeal to hearing, regardless of the outcome. Fees are adopted by City Council resolution and updated annually.
Use the chart below to properly determine or calculate your appeal fee. If you are appealing for Hearing Officer Review
and cannot determine the amount of your fine(s), please contact the City Attorney's Office by phone (805)781-7140 or
email city attorney@slocity.org, and support staff will be able to assist you:
Construction Board of Appeals, Title 15 violations Fees effective 7/1/2025
Minor: related to an Alteration/ Addition of an existing Single-Family or Accessory Dwelling Unit $636.54
(including duplexes), a demolition permit, or any item permitted under the "Additional Building
Fees" schedule
Moderate: related to all other permits that are processed under the alteration/addition work class, $1,139.18
New Single-Family permits (including duplexes), and New Accessory Dwelling Unit permits
Major: related to anything that doesn't fall into one of the other two categories $2,011.59
Administrative Review Board -
Hearing Officer review, capped at $109.18 but could be less depending on the amount of your fine
Amount of fine(s) being appealed: (1)
25% of fine(s): amount in (1) multiplied by 0.25 (2)
Cost Recovery Appeal Fee Cap: I (3) $109.18
Your appeal fee: whichever is less of (2) & (3) $
Payment by check should be made out to the "City of San Luis Obispo." Payment by credit card can be facilitated by the
Finance Department1 and should be completed prior to submission of your appeal form, with a copy of the payment receipt
attached to the form. Any appeal received without payment of the proper fee may be rejected.
8. In-Person Hearing: It is your right, no matter which appeal process you choose, to have an in-person hearing for your
appeal. However, you are under no obligation to appear. If you choose, you may elect to have your appeal reviewed on the
record (all the documents, pictures, etc. submitted by yourself or the City). San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.llO(F).
This review on the record will occur on or after a certain date and you will receive written notice of the date of review for
your appeal. If you choose to participate in an in-person hearing, you will receive a written notice of hearing. San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.110(8).
9. Official Mailing Address: The Municipal Code requires certain notices be sent via U.S. Mail and so, while courtesy
notifications may be sent via email or to other addresses, you are required to provide one official mailing address for your
appeal. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.lOO(C)(S}.
10. Signature: The step most commonly missed in the appeal process (and the most common reason for rejection of a timely
appeal) is failure to sign the appeal and declare the facts stated in the appeal to be true. The form provides a signature
block for this purpose but if there are multiple appellants, all must sign a declaration. Any additional declarations can be
attached as additional pages. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24.lOO(Cl(S).
11. Representative of Appellant: Any legal representative or other agent assisting with the preparation of the appeal or who
intends to appear at the hearing, must provide their contact information and relationship to the appellant.
1 Finance Department staff are available· by phone (805)781-7124 and at the public counter, downstairs at City Hall (990 Palm
Street), Monday-Thursday, 8:00am - 4:00pm
Page 3
I am appealing Adm inistrative Citation N o. 00042617 with respect to the escalation and cum ulative
application of multiple citation tiers.
Th e only com m un ication received prior to th e citation was th e Decem ber 4, 2025 N otice to Correct,
which refe renced inconsistent dates fo r an underlying event (Septe m ber 26 an d Septem ber 27, 2025). Th is
created uncerta inty regardin g the tim eline of enfo rcem ent an d the bas is fo r an y subsequent escal ation.
N o interm ediate citations, fir st-level fines, or ad ditional enfo rcem ent comm unications were issued
betw een th e N otice to Correct an d the Ja nuary 30, 2026 citation. Th e citation issued on Jan uary 30, 2026
includes multiple escalating tiers (1 st, 2nd, 3rd, an d ad ditional citation levels) applied sim ultan eously
un der the sam e code section, with out prior issuance of progressive citations corr esponding to each alleged
violation.
Bas ed on the lan guage of the N otice to Correct, it was reasonably understood that continued violations
could result in an ad m inistrative citation. It w as not understood th at m ultiple escalating cita tion levels
would be im posed at once without prior notice or an opportun ity to correct fo llow ing each ste p of
enfo rcem ent.
Th e tenan ts have tak en steps to ensur e com plian ce, an d an y fratern ity-relate d activity at th e pro perty has
ceased. Th e tenan ts, lan dlord, and fa m ilies are working together to prevent fu ture violations.
Wh ile the City 's auth ority to enfo rce zo ning regulations is ac know ledged, th e sim ultan eous sta cking of
multiple cita tion tiers with out interm ediate enfo rcem ent steps appear s inconsistent w ith th e principle of
pro gressive enfo rcem ent. Th e citation lists escalating fines ($10 0, $500, and $1,000 levels) under th e
same code section an d issued on the sam e date, without explanation of how each tier was triggered.
For these reas ons, it is respectfu lly requested that the higher-tier citation levels be set aside or otherw ise
m odified to reflect a pro portional an d pro cedura lly consistent application of th e City's ad m inistrative
citation pro cess.
City of San Luis Obispo Finance
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7124 www.slocity.org
Thank you for your payment,
Have a nice day!
Thursday Mar 05 2026 03:09:22 PM
Admin Citation Appeal Fee (ACAF)
ADM42617 RUSSELL HUTCHINSON 109. 18
-·-·-----·------------------
Total
Credit
109.18
109.18
Receipt#: finance-03052026-37
Cashier: Maryanna Espejo-Moses
VISA ************
Entry Method: CONTACTLESS
Date: 03/05/26 Time: 15:10:33
Reference: q-3AXwKMj i 44xOazmLvmpn8xhU\1e5
ti.11th Code: 110691
From:Belghoul, Amel
To:
Subject:Receipt of Administrative Citation Appeal - Hutchinson
Date:Friday, March 6, 2026 2:26:00 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
Russel Hutchinson,
On March 5, 2026, the City of San Luis Obispo received your Administrative Citation Appeal Form for
the citation issued to you on February 26, 2026.
As you have elected to forego an in-person hearing, review of your appeal on the record will be
scheduled as soon as there is an opening in the calendar of the volunteer hearing officer. You will be
notified in writing of the day in which a hearing officer will review your appeal, as required by the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Payment of your fine is on hold until the hearing officer has issued a decision.
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant I
City Attorney's Office
E ABelghou@slocity.org
T 805.781.7555
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information
transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential
attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly
accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the
authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you
received this document through inadvertent error and any further review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else
is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE
NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805)
781-7140. Thank you.
PROOF OF SERVICE
- 1 -
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
I am employed in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. I am over the age of
18, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California 93401.
On April 16, 2026, I caused the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REVIEW to be served on the interested parties in this action by
placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes, addressed as follows:
Russell Hutchinson
385 Albert Dr
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Email:
[X]By United States Mail: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope addressed as
indicated above. I am readily familiar with the office’s practice of collection and
processing documents for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same
day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served,
service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
than one day after the date of service.
[X]Courtesy Copy by E-mail: I caused this document to be transmitted via e-mail to the e-
mail address listed above.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 16, 2026, at San Luis Obispo, California.
_____________________________
Amel Belghoul
1
From:Cohen, Rachel
Sent:Thursday, April 16, 2026 4:46 PM
To:Belghoul, Amel
Cc:Patino, Mallory
Subject:Re: Public Records Request
Hi Amel-
Could you provide access to me and Mallory Patino to these documents? We are currently working on the
Appeal for City Council.
Thank you,
Rachel Cohen
pronouns she/her/hers
Principal Planner
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E rcohen@slocity.org
T 805.781.7574
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2026 2:57 PM
To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>
Subject: FW: Public Records Request
fyi
From: Belghoul, Amel <ABelghou@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2026 2:56 PM
To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John
<jmezzapesa@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>
Cc: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org>; Wooten, Eric
<ewooten@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Public Records Request
Hello,
Please find the records mentioned in the email below in the following link:
CalPoly Frat events Records
2
Let me know if you cannot access the link.
Thank you,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant I
City Attorney's Office
E ABelghou@slocity.org
T 805.781.7555
From: kathie walker <
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2026 12:52 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler
<tcorey@slocity.org>
Cc: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>
Subject: Fwd: Public Records Request
I am not sure who is handling the Alpha Epsilon Pi appeal to the Council on May 19, but wanted to pass
along this information relevant to that appeal. Timmi, you mentioned Ethan but I think Mallory was the
planner who presented it at the Planning Commission. I'm not sure who to communicate with.
I believe the hearing is de novo, which means it is an entirely new hearing and new facts are allowed to be
presented. In other words, you are not limited solely by the information provided in the staff report to the
Planning Commission. I spoke with Timmi about information missing from the staff report at the PC
hearing, such as Cal Poly's party registration records that show multiple events with 160 expected
guests. Every party exceeded the 25 person cap, which is a condition of the CUP.
For code enforcement's purposes as well as the upcoming hearing, Steve asked Cal Poly for AEPi's party
registration records for 2026 and forwarded me the link with those records, which is attached to this
email. When you click on the link, it will ask you for the email which
is Please download the records before the link expires on April 24, 2026.
The records show three rush events with 100 people each on January 16, 17 and 18, 2026. And the
following parties: Valentine's on 2/14/2026 with 150 expected guests; Jewpiter Space Rave on 2/21/2026
with 100 expected guests (Doorlist shows 375 going to that party); Rave with Delta Gamma on February
27, 2026 with 160 expected guests, Jewmanji on 2/28/2026 with 100 expected guests.
City staff notified AEPi and the property owner that the CUP would be re-reviewed by the PC on January
29. In the 30 days following that notification, AEPi hosted at least five events at 280 California Blvd
with documented expected attendance between 100-160 people, far exceeding the CUP limit of 25.
These events were registered with an approved by Cal Poly's Fraternity and Sorority Life office, which had
been provided with AEPi's CUP over a year earlier.
After the Planning Commission re-review in November 2024, AEPi also held multiple events that far
exceeded the CUP limitations, documented by Cal Poly's records. The Planning Commissioners were
very clear in the hearing that there would be zero tolerance moving forward, and one citation would bring
them back for re-review, citing the "public nuisance" standard of the noise ordinance.
3
Code Enforcement records also show a carwash event in May 2025 with 50 people noted by Steve
Sheats, where the CUP only allows 25. Despite it being a violation of the CUP, Code Enforcement
"resolved the matter on site" and the fraternity members were warned that their CUP was at risk.
Code Enforcement records also show a violation of overflowing trash, furniture and debris on the
property in December 2025, which is another violation of the CUP but was not noted in the previous staff
report.
My goal is to ensure the staff report contains accurate and complete information and the full scope of
violations of the CUP, including those outlined in this email.
Thank you,
Kathie
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Public Records Act Officer <pra@calpoly.edu>
Date: Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Public Records Request
To: Steven Walker <
Cc: Public Records Act Officer <pra@calpoly.edu>
Hello Steven,
Please see the attached correspondence regarding your records request. Responsive records can be
found at the link below. This link will remain active until April 24, 2026 at 11:59 PM.
04-01-2026 Walker PRA Request
Sincerely,
Sharon Galloway She/Her/Hers (Pronouns Matter)
PRA Unit Confidential Office Support
Civil Rights & Compliance Office – Public Records Access Unit
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
___________
(805) 756-6770 (CRCO Main Line)
(805) 756-3778 (Direct Line)
___________
pra@calpoly.edu
______________________________________________________________________________
4
THIS MESSAGE MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED OR
CONFIDENTIAL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE REPLY
TO SENDER AND DELETE THE MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
From: Steven Walker <
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 11:01 AM
To: Public Records Act Officer <pra@calpoly.edu>
Subject: Public Records Request
To the Cal Poly Public Records Coordinator:
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I request the following records for the period December 1,
2025 to the present (date of production):
1. All event registration forms submitted by or on behalf of Alpha Epsilon Pi (Sigma Omega Chapter) to
the Fraternity and Sorority Life (FSL) office, including but not limited to the following fields as reflected on
each form:
• Event date, start time, and end time
• Event name and theme
• Whether alcohol will be present
• Event address or venue
• Estimated number of guests
• Sober monitor information
• Any additional comments or notes on the form
• Approval status, approval date, and any comments from the FSL approver
2. All post-event (after-event) reports submitted by or on behalf of Alpha Epsilon Pi to the FSL office
following each registered event, including:
• Event date
• Actual number of guests in attendance
• Any notes or comments on the report
3. All FSL communications, including emails, notices, or other correspondence, regarding late,
incomplete, or missing post-event report submissions by Alpha Epsilon Pi.
With respect to all categories, please redact any personally identifying information of individual students
(including but not limited to names, student ID numbers, phone numbers, and email addresses) prior to
production.
If any portion of these records is withheld, please identify the specific statutory exemption(s) relied upon
for each withheld record or portion thereof, as required by Gov. Code § 7922.000.
I request that responsive records be provided in electronic format. Please notify me promptly if
clarification is needed.
Steven Walker
1
From:Belghoul, Amel
Sent:Thursday, April 16, 2026 4:48 PM
To:Cohen, Rachel
Cc:Patino, Mallory
Subject:RE: Public Records Request
Hi Rachel and Malory,
It’s done. CalPoly Frat events Records
Let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant I
City Attorney's Office
E ABelghou@slocity.org
T 805.781.7555
From: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2026 4:46 PM
To: Belghoul, Amel <ABelghou@slocity.org>
Cc: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Public Records Request
Hi Amel-
Could you provide access to me and Mallory Patino to these documents? We are currently working on the
Appeal for City Council.
Thank you,
Rachel Cohen
pronouns she/her/hers
Principal Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E rcohen@slocity.org
T 805.781.7574
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
2
From: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2026 2:57 PM
To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>
Subject: FW: Public Records Request
fyi
From: Belghoul, Amel <ABelghou@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2026 2:56 PM
To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John
<jmezzapesa@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>
Cc: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Kersten, Markie <mkersten@slocity.org>; Wooten, Eric
<ewooten@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Public Records Request
Hello,
Please find the records mentioned in the email below in the following link:
CalPoly Frat events Records
Let me know if you cannot access the link.
Thank you,
Amel Belghoul
Legal Assistant I
City Attorney's Office
E ABelghou@slocity.org
T 805.781.7555
From: kathie walker <
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2026 12:52 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <jmezzapesa@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler
<tcorey@slocity.org>
Cc: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>
Subject: Fwd: Public Records Request
I am not sure who is handling the Alpha Epsilon Pi appeal to the Council on May 19, but wanted to pass
along this information relevant to that appeal. Timmi, you mentioned Ethan but I think Mallory was the
planner who presented it at the Planning Commission. I'm not sure who to communicate with.
I believe the hearing is de novo, which means it is an entirely new hearing and new facts are allowed to be
presented. In other words, you are not limited solely by the information provided in the staff report to the
Planning Commission. I spoke with Timmi about information missing from the staff report at the PC
hearing, such as Cal Poly's party registration records that show multiple events with 160 expected
guests. Every party exceeded the 25 person cap, which is a condition of the CUP.
3
For code enforcement's purposes as well as the upcoming hearing, Steve asked Cal Poly for AEPi's party
registration records for 2026 and forwarded me the link with those records, which is attached to this
email. When you click on the link, it will ask you for the email which
is Please download the records before the link expires on April 24, 2026.
The records show three rush events with 100 people each on January 16, 17 and 18, 2026. And the
following parties: Valentine's on 2/14/2026 with 150 expected guests; Jewpiter Space Rave on 2/21/2026
with 100 expected guests (Doorlist shows 375 going to that party); Rave with Delta Gamma on February
27, 2026 with 160 expected guests, Jewmanji on 2/28/2026 with 100 expected guests.
City staff notified AEPi and the property owner that the CUP would be re-reviewed by the PC on January
29. In the 30 days following that notification, AEPi hosted at least five events at 280 California Blvd
with documented expected attendance between 100-160 people, far exceeding the CUP limit of 25.
These events were registered with an approved by Cal Poly's Fraternity and Sorority Life office, which had
been provided with AEPi's CUP over a year earlier.
After the Planning Commission re-review in November 2024, AEPi also held multiple events that far
exceeded the CUP limitations, documented by Cal Poly's records. The Planning Commissioners were
very clear in the hearing that there would be zero tolerance moving forward, and one citation would bring
them back for re-review, citing the "public nuisance" standard of the noise ordinance.
Code Enforcement records also show a carwash event in May 2025 with 50 people noted by Steve
Sheats, where the CUP only allows 25. Despite it being a violation of the CUP, Code Enforcement
"resolved the matter on site" and the fraternity members were warned that their CUP was at risk.
Code Enforcement records also show a violation of overflowing trash, furniture and debris on the
property in December 2025, which is another violation of the CUP but was not noted in the previous staff
report.
My goal is to ensure the staff report contains accurate and complete information and the full scope of
violations of the CUP, including those outlined in this email.
Thank you,
Kathie
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Public Records Act Officer <pra@calpoly.edu>
Date: Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Public Records Request
To: Steven Walker <
Cc: Public Records Act Officer <pra@calpoly.edu>
Hello Steven,
Please see the attached correspondence regarding your records request. Responsive records can be
found at the link below. This link will remain active until April 24, 2026 at 11:59 PM.
4
04-01-2026 Walker PRA Request
Sincerely,
Sharon Galloway She/Her/Hers (Pronouns Matter)
PRA Unit Confidential Office Support
Civil Rights & Compliance Office – Public Records Access Unit
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
___________
(805) 756-6770 (CRCO Main Line)
(805) 756-3778 (Direct Line)
___________
pra@calpoly.edu
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS MESSAGE MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED OR
CONFIDENTIAL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE REPLY
TO SENDER AND DELETE THE MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
From: Steven Walker <
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 11:01 AM
To: Public Records Act Officer <pra@calpoly.edu>
Subject: Public Records Request
To the Cal Poly Public Records Coordinator:
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I request the following records for the period December 1,
2025 to the present (date of production):
1. All event registration forms submitted by or on behalf of Alpha Epsilon Pi (Sigma Omega Chapter) to
the Fraternity and Sorority Life (FSL) office, including but not limited to the following fields as reflected on
each form:
• Event date, start time, and end time
• Event name and theme
• Whether alcohol will be present
• Event address or venue
• Estimated number of guests
5
• Sober monitor information
• Any additional comments or notes on the form
• Approval status, approval date, and any comments from the FSL approver
2. All post-event (after-event) reports submitted by or on behalf of Alpha Epsilon Pi to the FSL office
following each registered event, including:
• Event date
• Actual number of guests in attendance
• Any notes or comments on the report
3. All FSL communications, including emails, notices, or other correspondence, regarding late,
incomplete, or missing post-event report submissions by Alpha Epsilon Pi.
With respect to all categories, please redact any personally identifying information of individual students
(including but not limited to names, student ID numbers, phone numbers, and email addresses) prior to
production.
If any portion of these records is withheld, please identify the specific statutory exemption(s) relied upon
for each withheld record or portion thereof, as required by Gov. Code § 7922.000.
I request that responsive records be provided in electronic format. Please notify me promptly if
clarification is needed.
Steven Walker