Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBatch 1779 From:Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent:Monday, July 14, 2025 11:07 AM To:McDonald, Whitney Subject:Proposed agenda: greek life meeting Attachments:2507 Greek Life Meeting.docx Hi! Happy Monday. Please let me know your thoughts/edits on the attached proposed draft agenda for Wednesday’s Greek life meeting. It’s probably not necessary but I thought it might put some structure around the meeting for us. Thanks! Warmly, Courtney Courtney Kienow pronouns she/hers (why is this important?) Director of Community Relations and Economic Development Office of the President Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA _____ office 805-756-6000 direct 805-756-6098 www.calpoly.edu Cal Poly & City of SLO Greek Life Meeting City Hall, Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street Wednesday, July 16th | 1:30pm-2:50pm Attendees City of SLO Whitney McDonald, City Manager Scott Collins, Assistant City Manager Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager Timmi Tway, Community Development Director Cal Poly Terrance Harris, Vice President of Student Affairs and Strategic Enrollment Management Joy Pederson, Dean of Students Jason Mockford, Senior Director, Leadership & Service Courtney Kienow, Director of Community Relations and Economic Development Agenda 1. Welcome & Introductions – Courtney leads I. Brief round of introductions II. Purpose of the meeting 2. Quick Overview of FSL at Cal Poly – Jason leads I. Current landscape (membership statistics, council breakdowns, staffing) 3. Fraternity Housing Challenges – Whitney and Terrance lead I. Background and context of issue II. Key stakeholders and perspectives 4. Progress Made to Date – Jason leads 5. Discuss Proposed Solutions – all 80 From:James, Dillon Sent:Monday, July 14, 2025 9:18 AM To:Marx, Jan Subject:Re: City Council July 15, 2025 - Agenda Item 8a - Ad Hoc Council Committee re Grand Jury Report Council Member Marx, I have printed this and added it to the other recently-printed documents for pick-up at your convenience. Thank you. Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 9:11 AM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: FW: City Council July 15, 2025 - Agenda Item 8a - Ad Hoc Council Committee re Grand Jury Report Please print From: carolyn smith < Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 8:55 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: City Council July 15, 2025 - Agenda Item 8a - Ad Hoc Council Committee re Grand Jury Report Mayor Stewart and Council Members: The Grand Jury investigation was instigated by residents who felt the city was continuing to fail in their duty to protect their neighborhoods from the dangerous drunken St. Fratty's Day event. The complaint was filed in June of 2024 after the police chief had announced to the city and the public that his department's enforcement plan that was used for the St. Fratty's Day event in March of 2024, the same plan used in prior years, was successful. This announcement was despite the continued growth of the rowdy drunken crowd rising from 2,000 in 2022 to 7,000+ in 2024, and despite the outcries from residents that it was indeed NOT a “success.” Residents feared that the St. Fratty's event in 2025 would be even larger and more dangerous since the chief was not acknowledging that more needed to be done. In fact, the council had insisted that the party had to end. The chief's announcement of success and denial of residents' pleas for better enforcement was the impetus that caused desperate 81 fearful residents to file a Grand Jury Complaint. Fortunately, residents were finally taken seriously and coordinated efforts between the city and Cal Poly resulted in a positive result in 2025. Hopefully, that cooperation will continue next year, otherwise the event will recur. A second Grand Jury complaint was submitted by frustrated residents in the Alta Vista Neighborhood who have been pleading with the city to enforce its zoning codes to eliminate illegal fraternity operations in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods that have been ravaging their lives. After an extensive investigation by 19 impartial Grand Jurors, they concluded that the city has, in fact, failed to protect its residents by not enforcing its residential neighborhood zoning laws. Not only did the jurors perform extensive research, review records, and conduct interviews, but they also witnessed first hand the extremely disturbing large fraternity parties that occur in several residential neighborhoods adjacent to Cal Poly each weekend. That's more than anyone from the city has done. Each council member has been sent videos demonstrating the extreme disruptions from the unabated fraternity parties in the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods. Each council member has been invited to visit residents' homes on the weekends during the academic year to see first-hand what they have to endure but not one has taken up the invitation. Resident groups have met with council members and code enforcement officials only to hear the same excuses: insufficient staff and there's no money to hire more code enforcement personnel. This inaction has caused the problem only to get worse making these affected neighborhoods nearly unlivable as the Grand Jury concluded. Staff points out that noise complaints have been reduced since 2010 (a period of over FIFTEEN years), but what they fail to mention is that those numbers have remained at a nearly stagnant level for the past 10 years (hovering between 1400 and 1500). Many long-term residents have given up calling the police when little to nothing is done to stop the parties, resulting in many taking the drastic measure of moving away from their long-term homes, causing even more homes in those neighborhoods to turn into student rentals. This could be a contributing factor in the reduction of noise complaints. The city's efforts of having “meetings” with Cal Poly have proven to be futile since nothing ever comes out of those meetings that resolves the problems. The Civility Report Staff mentions was an effort completed YEARS ago and the fraternities operating illegally in R-1 and R-2 zones is a more recent occurrence not even considered in that endeavor. Staff also mentions the efforts of SCLC as a method of helping to resolve town/gown issues. I was RQN's representative on SCLC for five years until the pandemic. Unfortunately, since then, the mission statement of the committee has changed (instigated by Cal Poly with concurrence by the city), resulting in a chilling effect for residents in bringing up problems in neighborhoods impacted by student rentals. Thus, there's little to no coordinated effort to actually deal with the illegal fraternity operations causing neighborhood problems in that committee. It has become an exchange of information group with little to no conversations on how to solve town/gown problems. Additionally, over city staff's objections, Cal Poly is purposely violating AB 524 by erasing previously provided street addresses where their fraternities are operating while claiming they're acting within the law. It appears, however, there have been no efforts made by the city to adjudicate this dispute. Further, the city should be making Cal Poly accountable for inviting new fraternities without providing accommodation for them. Cal Poly should not be sanctioning fraternity parties without Staff or Cal Poly PD doing any on-site monitoring for noise or other infractions to protect neighborhood residents from the mayhem they've been experiencing from these sanctioned parties and events. Therefore, if you feel you must form an ad hoc committee to respond to the Grand Jury Report, please focus your response on how the city is going to do better to resolve the problem of fraternities illegally operating in R-1 and R-2 zones. Perhaps your response could include that (1) the city is going to form a task force comprised of city staff and residents negatively affected by these illegal operations (with the addition of Cal Poly sometime during the process), in an attempt to begin actually doing som ething concrete to address the violation of our zoning codes by Cal Poly fraternities that are destroying residents' quality of life in neighborhoods; (2) the city will fund an additional code enforcement official to exclusively deal with the fraternity zoning code violations and relieve the neighborhoods from these illegal operations; (3) the city intends to adjudicate the actions of Cal Poly removing street addresses 82 of their fraternity operations from their reporting required under AB 524. These responses would be effective in demonstrating a genuine plan of action to help residents negatively affected by the ever- increasing population of Cal Poly students and fraternity operations in our once peaceful family neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Carolyn Smith SLO City Resident 83 From:Marx, Jan Sent:Monday, July 14, 2025 9:12 AM To:James, Dillon Subject:FW: City Council July 15, 2025 - Agenda Item 8a - Ad Hoc Council Committee re Grand Jury Report Please print From: carolyn smith < Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 8:55 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: City Council July 15, 2025 - Agenda Item 8a - Ad Hoc Council Committee re Grand Jury Report Mayor Stewart and Council Members: The Grand Jury investigation was instigated by residents who felt the city was continuing to fail in their duty to protect their neighborhoods from the dangerous drunken St. Fratty's Day event. The complaint was filed in June of 2024 after the police chief had announced to the city and the public that his department's enforcement plan that was used for the St. Fratty's Day event in March of 2024, the same plan used in prior years, was successful. This announcement was despite the continued growth of the rowdy drunken crowd rising from 2,000 in 2022 to 7,000+ in 2024, and despite the outcries from residents that it was indeed NOT a “success.” Residents feared that the St. Fratty's event in 2025 would be even larger and more dangerous since the chief was not acknowledging that more needed to be done. In fact, the council had insisted that the party had to end. The chief's announcement of success and denial of residents' pleas for better enforcement was the impetus that caused desperate fearful residents to file a Grand Jury Complaint. Fortunately, residents were finally taken seriously and coordinated efforts between the city and Cal Poly resulted in a positive result in 2025. Hopefully, that cooperation will continue next year, otherwise the event will recur. A second Grand Jury complaint was submitted by frustrated residents in the Alta Vista Neighborhood who have been pleading with the city to enforce its zoning codes to eliminate illegal fraternity operations in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods that have been ravaging their lives. After an extensive investigation by 19 impartial Grand Jurors, they concluded that the city has, in fact, failed to protect its residents by not enforcing its residential neighborhood zoning laws. Not only did the jurors perform extensive research, review records, and conduct interviews, but they also witnessed first hand the extremely disturbing large fraternity parties that occur in several residential neighborhoods adjacent to Cal Poly each weekend. That's more than anyone from the city has done. Each council member has been sent videos demonstrating the extreme disruptions from the unabated fraternity parties in the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods. Each council member has been invited to visit residents' homes on the weekends during the academic year to see first-hand what they have to endure but not one has taken up the invitation. Resident groups have met with council members and code enforcement officials only to hear the same excuses: insufficient staff and there's no money to hire more code enforcement personnel. This inaction has caused the problem only to get worse making these affected neighborhoods nearly unlivable as the Grand Jury concluded. Staff points out that noise complaints have been reduced since 2010 (a period of over FIFTEEN years), but what they fail to mention is that those numbers have remained at a nearly stagnant level for the past 10 years (hovering between 1400 and 1500). Many long-term residents have given up calling the police when little to nothing is done to stop the parties, resulting in many taking the drastic measure of 84 moving away from their long-term homes, causing even more homes in those neighborhoods to turn into student rentals. This could be a contributing factor in the reduction of noise complaints. The city's efforts of having “meetings” with Cal Poly have proven to be futile since nothing ever comes out of those meetings that resolves the problems. The Civility Report Staff mentions was an effort completed YEARS ago and the fraternities operating illegally in R-1 and R-2 zones is a more recent occurrence not even considered in that endeavor. Staff also mentions the efforts of SCLC as a method of helping to resolve town/gown issues. I was RQN's representative on SCLC for five years until the pandemic. Unfortunately, since then, the mission statement of the committee has changed (instigated by Cal Poly with concurrence by the city), resulting in a chilling effect for residents in bringing up problems in neighborhoods impacted by student rentals. Thus, there's little to no coordinated effort to actually deal with the illegal fraternity operations causing neighborhood problems in that committee. It has become an exchange of information group with little to no conversations on how to solve town/gown problems. Additionally, over city staff's objections, Cal Poly is purposely violating AB 524 by erasing previously provided street addresses where their fraternities are operating while claiming they're acting within the law. It appears, however, there have been no efforts made by the city to adjudicate this dispute. Further, the city should be making Cal Poly accountable for inviting new fraternities without providing accommodation for them. Cal Poly should not be sanctioning fraternity parties without Staff or Cal Poly PD doing any on-site monitoring for noise or other infractions to protect neighborhood residents from the mayhem they've been experiencing from these sanctioned parties and events. Therefore, if you feel you must form an ad hoc committee to respond to the Grand Jury Report, please focus your response on how the city is going to do better to resolve the problem of fraternities illegally operating in R-1 and R-2 zones. Perhaps your response could include that (1) the city is going to form a task force comprised of city staff and residents negatively affected by these illegal operations (with the addition of Cal Poly sometime during the process), in an attempt to begin actually doing som ething concrete to address the violation of our zoning codes by Cal Poly fraternities that are destroying residents' quality of life in neighborhoods; (2) the city will fund an additional code enforcement official to exclusively deal with the fraternity zoning code violations and relieve the neighborhoods from these illegal operations; (3) the city intends to adjudicate the actions of Cal Poly removing street addresses of their fraternity operations from their reporting required under AB 524. These responses would be effective in demonstrating a genuine plan of action to help residents negatively affected by the ever- increasing population of Cal Poly students and fraternity operations in our once peaceful family neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Carolyn Smith SLO City Resident 85 86 From:James, Dillon Sent:Monday, July 14, 2025 9:10 AM To:Marx, Jan Subject:Re: Ad Hoc Committee (Item 8a.) and clarification of "Background" provided in the agenda Good morning Council Member, I have printed Kathie's email correspondence, the call log attachment, and the 2015 City Council agenda report referenced in the email as well. These are ready for pick-up at your convenience. Please let me know if I may print or prepare anything else for you. Thank you! Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 8:49 AM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Ad Hoc Committee (Item 8a.) and clarification of "Background" provided in the agenda Please print this out, including attachments. Thanks Jan From: kathie walker < Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2025 12:58 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Ad Hoc Committee (Item 8a.) and clarification of "Background" provided in the agenda Dear City Councilmembers, I have been closely following the City Council and policy decisions in San Luis Obispo for over a decade and have a good understanding of the historical context of several issues. There is value in understanding that history. When there is turnover in City leadership and new Councilmembers are elected, or new staff leadership is hired, they usually do not fully understand the complexities of the background that led to certain policies. 87 Jan Marx is the most knowledgeable about the subject investigated by the Grand Jury. I have watched her input be dismissed at times, despite her expertise in these issues, which is unfortunate. When it comes to noise in the Alta Vista neighborhood, Ms. Marx lived it firsthand. It got worse after she moved away, and a lot more illegal fraternities moved into the neighborhood, but she is the most experienced person on the Council and is familiar with the relevant issues. Ms. Marx should be on the Ad Hoc Committee to respond to the Grand Jury. It appears that the mayor must comment according to California Penal Code 933. It’s not clear whether that means she would also be on the Ad Hoc committee. If so, she would be an asset. Otherwise, I recommend that the second member of the Ad Hoc Committee be Emily Francis or Mike Boswell. I feel that Jan’s input should be considered for who she feels would be the best fit to work together for this important role. Some of my reasons for not including Michelle Shoresman are included in the correspondence below. This is nothing personal against Michelle, and I think she is a nice person. However, she has failed to recognize the issue, has not supported Jan Marx’s attempt to have the item agendized (Erica Stewart did support the idea), has minimized the failure of the City, including Code Enforcement, to respond to complaints, among several other things that seems to indicate she is more aligned with City staff and Cal Poly than concerned about the constituents who elected her to represent them. The Council agenda for July 15, 2025, item 8a, lists the “Background” of the City’s efforts toward “neighborhood wellness”. Some of the information provided on the agenda is false. I want to provide the correct information so that the misinformation can be corrected. Also, I hope that you focus on the core issues that are relevant to the CURRENT situation by acknowledging the ext ent to which it exists. Programs and Policies The Background in the agenda says, “many of the approaches have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings,” and lists various programs and policies. We have lived in the neighborhood since the inception of these programs and policies, and can unequivocally tell you that despite each of the listed items, the noise exponentially increased in the Fall of 2021. This correlates to the significant increase i n illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood. Several fraternities moved near our home in 2021, and many were the Main Chapter houses of Cal Poly's fraternities. Even more moved in in the Fall of 2022, including one right next door and another directly across the street from our home. More were established in 2023, also near our home on Kentucky and Stafford (496 Kentucky and 1350 Stafford) and on Stafford (1271, 1273, and 1275 Stafford). And even more were added nearby in 2024, including 1276 Bond. That does not include the dozens of others, which I will not list here, but I have previously provided the addresses. Each of them held fraternity-related events throughout the year, including rush events and sorority exchanges. The increased noise level in the Fall of 2021 was documented by first-hand accounts of long-term residents in several “neighborhood group” email exchanges. That’s when I started sending videos of fraternity parties to the City because loud parties at illegal fraternities that could be heard from a block away were being cleared by SLOPD as a negative violation or unable to locate. Prior to the Fall of 2021, I had never contacted SLOPD about noisy parties because they were not such a huge issue as they were beginning in the Fall of 2021. I never had any correspondence with SLOPD Chief Cantrell or Chief Linden whatsoever, because it was not necessary. I only sent one email to Chief Gessell related to the ongoing fireworks set off on Stafford at the rugby house, next to Sid and Isabel Marques. He was responsive and respectful and went to the house with the Fire Marshall. There was never another fireworks incident from that property. But since the Fall of 2021, the noise from the illegal fraternities has gotten progressively worse each year, and most of the long- term residents on the original email chain have left the neighborhood. I have corresponded with SLOPD leadership many, many times since then without resolution. It has been enormously frustrating. The issues have also been brought up in public forums such as the City Council and the SCLC, and the pushback and dishonesty from Police Chief Scott have been especially disheartening. Civility Report 88 The City references the “Neighborhood Wellness Community Civility Working Group,” which worked on a plan for a couple of years to promote neighborhood wellness and produced a 90-page Final Report published in Spring 2015. There were six objectives in the Final Report. I have attached a condensed version, which was attached to a City Council Agenda on 12/1/2025, when the Council recommended expanding the SCLC to include two more residents who were “most directly involved with neighborhood wellness.” The Chair of the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Karen Adler, was one of two people on the working group to address Objective One. She is still the Chair of AVNA, and her home is also now surrounded by illegal fraternities. She has expressed her extreme displeasure with the lack of enforcement by the City of illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood. It is ridiculous for the City to continue to minimize the problem and not take meaningful action to fix it. Below are the six objectives from the Civility Report. None of the recommendations for Objective One, shown below, are currently implemented: I am fairly certain that none of the recommendations in Objective Two related to neighborhood wellness are currently implemented, except maybe the City sends information to college students about trash collection. 89 Of all the recommendations listed in Objective Three, the only item that I know is currently implemented is the party registr ation program. It should be noted that RQN opposed that policy when it was adopted and is still opposed to the program. When a party is registered, SLOPD does not respond, and the reporting party is told to call back in 20 minutes if the party is still going. Fraternities were registering parties with over 100 people, and the nearby neighbors were woken by the party, then had to call SLOPD, and there were no consequences. It’s essentially a ‘free pass’ to have a loud party. Also, live bands are sometimes registered, even though they are not allowed by the program, but they get a warning call, and there are no consequences. The neighborhood is still disturbed by the loud music and guests leaving after the party is broken up, which can last an hour. The SCLC is also listed as a collaborative measure; however, the MOU for SCLC was recently revised to dilute the original pur pose of addressing issues between college students and nearby neighborhoods, and the neighborhood representatives for geographical neighborhoods and member-at-large are now elected rather than appointed by the Neighborhood Associations. Last year, two SCLC members brought up the illegal fraternity issue at every single meeting, and it was never addressed within the SCLC. 90 91 Objective Four mostly relates to law enforcement between Cal Poly and the City. One item related to neighborhood wellness was assigned to SCLC to “change the student culture related to neighborhood wellness”. As discussed, the most significant issue related to noise issues in the neighborhoods near campus, spreading to other neighborhoods in northern SLO, has not been discussed at the SCLC despite being brought up during every meeting. 92 Objective Five has one item, and I am not convinced that the City has “effectively informed the community on matters of neighborhood wellness” in an annual communications plan, especially related to illegal fraternity operations, which are the largest negative impact on affected neighborhoods. Objective Six is solely about SCLC. The action item of shifting memberships “to directly involve those individuals most directly involved in neighborhood wellness” is not currently happening. Aside from one RQN representative, there are only two 'neighborhood representatives', including the neighborhood-at-large representative, Abe Lincoln. He does not live in an affected neighborhood, does not belong to any group related to neighborhood wellness, and has criticized other representatives and community members for bringing up problems with noise and the illegal fraternity operations in the neighborhoods. Abe is a nice guy, but does not meet the qualifications intended for the seat he is occupying, and the proposed representative by the 93 Neighborhood Groups was rejected, even though they did meet the qualifications of the seat, and the MOU said that the Neighborhood Groups shall appoint that member. The perspective from neighborhoods most directly involved with noise is extremely diluted by the larger membership of Cal Poly and City representatives. The other two action items of an annual report and a town hall are not currently implemented. The SCLC meetings are subject to the Brown Act, but are not recorded and archived for the public, but they should be. Cal Poly Did Not Enforce the Zoning Ordinance When It Knew of the Illegal Fraternities in 2015 The City Council, City Manager, and other leadership knew about the small number of illegal fraternities on Hathway Avenue in 2015 because after the roof collapse on St. Fratty’s Day that year, Cal Poly hired an independent agency to investigate the incident. The report cited fraternities at 348 Hathway and “others” also on Hathway. That report was presented to the City Council and is included in an Agenda in 2015. SLOPD has also been aware of the illegal fraternity houses on Hathway since that time. Christine Wallace has said that the police department was very familiar with the identified Greek houses on Hathway dating back many years. Nonetheless, the City failed to enforce the zoning regulations in 2015 and set the stage for an explosion of more illegal fra ternity houses moving into the neighborhood. The fraternity members probably thought it was legal for them to operate because the City never took any proactive measures to stop their operations. Today, there are over 40 illegal fraternities in Alta Vista, and several others in Monterey Heights. There are also some west of Santa Rosa/Hwy 1. Cal Poly and Its Fraternities are Intentionally Breaking the Law For the past two academic years, Cal Poly administration, Greek Life staff, and IFC leadership have known it is not legal for them to operate in R1/R2 neighborhoods, but they have ignored the City’s laws. They host rush events to recruit new members and regularly hold blow-out fraternity events at their illegal fraternities in residential neighborhoods. We know these events are “fraternity-related” because they follow certain protocols, as required by Cal Poly Greek Life’s Event Registration Policy. Some indicators are fraternity member 'guards' at the front door wearing construction vests or shirts that say “security”, and they check in guests with laptops. I am certain that SLOPD is also familiar with these practices. The guests that go to the parties are 90% female and often are dressed in similar colors or themes, which indicates they are "exchanges" and registered beforehand with Cal Poly. The fraternities also post photos of events on Instagram at the illegal fraternity houses, whose 94 addresses have been previously documented by the City and which have identifiable features on their homes that are seen in the photos. Most of the Main Chapter Houses for Cal Poly’s 19 fraternities are in R1/R2 neighborhoods. Decrease in Noise vs. Increase in Illegal Fraternities The Background in the agenda cites a 45% decrease in noise complaints to SLOPD since 2010. This argument is a red herring to divert attention from the current issue and attempts to distract from the fact that the problem is ongoing and unresolved in the neighborhoods in the northern part of SLO, which is the subject of the Grand Jury’s report. In 2010, there were not 50+ illegal fraternity houses, and the noise complaints to SLOPD did not regularly include parties of 100-300 people in single-family neighborhoods, as they do today! Context matters. Some weekends, nearly 50% of all noise calls citywide are from fraternities, mostly illegally operating in the single-family neighborhoods. Also, many of the long-term residents have moved from these neighborhoods because they could not tolerate the noise from these illegal fraternity operations. It is disingenuous to minimize the immense problem that the residents of these neighborhoods endure every weekend that Cal Poly is in session, which was witnessed firsthand by the members of the Grand Jury. The City should admit there’s a problem, accept the recommendations, and move forward. Let’s work to solve the issue and hold those who are responsible accountable so the people who live in the neighborhoods can have the quiet enjoyment of their homes. DACs & Citations Are Usually Not Accurate When a DAC or noise citation is issued, the number of guests at a party is self-reported to SNAP or SLOPD by the person receiving the DAC or noise citation. For example, Delta Upsilon has an illegal fraternity house at 281 Albert Drive, and they hosted a concert there in May 2025. There were HUNDREDS of people in the backyard. You can see the party in a 1-minute video on their Instagram page here: https://www.instagram.com/p/DJXia7Uh8kO/?img_index=1 or here: https://vimeo.com/1094575248?share=copy#t=0 I SLOPD issued a noise citation to a Delta Upsilon fraternity member at 281 Albert Drive, and the citation said there were 50 people at that concert/party when there were actually at least 300 people. Law enforcement does not enter yards or count people. They ask the person getting the citation how many people are at the event, so the number on the citation is often not accurate, as people will say there is a lower number than the actual number of guests. It also does not reflect the impact of the event on the neighborhood. If the City is using this “data,” just know that it is self-reported by the offender and is not necessarily accurate. One other important point is that parties like the one shown in the video are common in the neighborhood and are rarely cited as unruly gatherings. There are parties that meet the legal standard of unruly gatherings every weekend that Cal Poly is in session, but very few are cited as unruly gatherings. Sometimes, SNAP responds to documented illegal fraternity houses that received letters from Code Enforcement, so a citation can’t even be issued unless SNAP calls SLOPD, but they usually don’t. If SLOPD were to cite these parties as unruly gatherings (which they are, according to the SLOMC), it would likely make an impact to stop them from continuing. Street Closure During St. Fratty’s Day 2022 In the agenda for 7/15/2025, the City claims, “It was not until 2023 that any extended street closure occurred in response to the party…” That is false. The neighborhood streets were barricaded by SLOPD in 2022 when about 2,000 people overtook the streets near our home. On March 12, 2022, St. Fratty’s Day, we were woken by fireworks at 4 a.m. Loud music was coming from MANY houses in the neighborhood because the party was pre-planned, according to many social media posts made on Friday, March 11, 2022, that talked about the St. Fratty’s Day party on Hathway in the early morning hours the next day. By 6 a.m., the intersection at Bond and Hathway was completely overtaken by the illegal street party, and people spanned from Fredericks to Carpenter and up Bond toward Kentucky Street. It was still dark outside, and I took a video of the crowd with my phone. 95 By around 7 a.m., SLOPD officers had blocked off the neighborhood with their vehicles. SLOPD had barricaded Hathway Avenue from Fredericks Street to Carpenter, and Bond Street was barricaded from Hathway Avenue to Kentucky Street. Officers at Fredericks and Hathway told me they had called their supervisor to the scene. I sent a timeline to the City Council of the SLOPD log from that morning to show the number of calls to our neighborhood. Some calls went unanswered for hours because there were not enough officers on duty to respond. Two of the calls I made to SLOPD did not even show up on the police log, including for a party at 348 Hathway, where many people were partying on the roof. It was one of the worst offenders that morning, and there was no response from SLOPD. My neighbor on Hathway also told me he called SLOPD, and his call was not listed. The log is attached to this email. Michelle Shoresman’s response to my email seemed to indicate that my “standards” were not realistic and that SLOPD had adequately handled the matter: “Thanks for the call log. I know you are frustrated and probably don’t think it’s sufficient, but I do happen to note that there are a large number of citations that were made, and even several arrests. I would think this is likely an improvement over past years, even if not still “enough” by your standards.” The truth is that the response in 2022 was not an improvement over past years because our neighborhood was not overtaken by thousands of people for an illegal street party before or after St. Fratty’s Day 2015, when a roof collapsed and ended the party by 6:30 a.m. In any event, the neighborhood streets were barricaded by SLOPD during St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, so hopefully the record is corrected. SLOPD Chief Rick Scott’s Statements to the Council Were Not True Since 2022, the SLOPD Chief Rick Scott has often falsely claimed that this event was “historically” large, as though it had happened in previous years after the roof collapse, but that is not true. We have lived in the neighborhood since St. Fratty’s Day was “founded” in 2009 by a fraternity at 348 Hathway Ave. It was not a street party until 2015, when the roof collapsed at around 6:15 a.m. It seems the Police Chief makes blanket statements, as though there have been illegal street parties during St. Fratty’s Day all along, to deflect the responsibility that, under his leadership, the neighborhood was taken over by thousands of people in 2022, 2023, and 2024. At a Council meeting on 3/15/2022, after St. Fratty’s Day, Chief Scott debriefed the Council: “We have been planning for St. Patrick’s Day for some time now…” and he minimized the magnitude of the event. He said it took “a couple of hours to get the situation under control,” when it actually lasted almost 6 hours, beginning at 4 a.m. He claimed SLOPD was “staffed up” for the event, anticipating crowds similar to numbers before the COVID-19 shutdown. SLOPD did not have additional staff that morning, and Deputy Chief Mickel explained that they were lucky that it happened near shift change, so they could hold over the night officers as the day officers came on duty. (DC Mickel was honest and transparent about the situation, and we appreciate him very much.) St. Fratty’s Day reemerged in 2022 and progressively got worse until it was finally stopped in 2025. The Grand Jury was corre ct in its finding that the event was not handled appropriately in 2022, 2023, and 2024 because SLOPD did not have enough staff to adequately handle the event. DC Mickel admitted that SLOPD was not prepared in 2023 during an RQN meeting. He also referenced the mistakes and failure of SLOPD to fully prepare in previous years (2022-2024) during his presentation to the Council on SLOPD’s plans for 2025. Council Meeting on March 15, 2022, after St. Fratty’s Day 2022 (before St. Patrick’s Day on March 17) During the Council meeting on 3/15/2022, Jan Marx asked that the Council agendize St. Fratty’s Day for discussion. While Erica Stewart supported a future conversation on an agenda, Michelle Shoresman did not support Ms. Marx’s suggestion. Ms. Shoresman said she didn’t want to agendize discussion on the expansion of the Safety Enhancement Zone to include St. Fratty’s Day and said “putting it in the bike rack” would work best for her. 96 It was disappointing that Ms. Shoresman did not give credit to Ms. Marx’s first-hand experience with the event and did not support even a discussion of the matter on a future agenda. Carlyn Christianson was also adamant in not agendizing the item, saying the trend was downwards and was of no concern. Emily Francis and Mike Boswell were not on the City Council then. Warning Before St. Fratty’s 2023 That Was Ignored and SLOPD Was Not Prepared St. Fratty’s Day is typically held on the Saturday before winter finals, and not necessarily the Saturday before St. Patrick’s Day. The event is centered around finals because many students leave town during the week of finals, and the students want to par ty while most are still in town. This should be noted for future years, since Cal Poly is converting to a semester system. In July 2022, I warned the City and SLOPD about St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s Day occurring on Friday/Saturday on the same weekend in 2023 and sent the graphic below to show the perfect-storm scenario that would likely result in an expansion and surge of partiers for St. Fratty’s Day. I thought that the failure to have an aggressive plan would result in legitimizing the event, which would cause the event to continue to gain traction and grow. Looking back, I believe the failure of SLOPD to have an adequate plan in 2023 set in motion the exponential growth of the event the following year. At that point, in 2024, it was too late for a Safety Enhancement Zone to have any meaningful effect. St. Fratty’s Day 2023 During the morning of St. Fratty’s Day 2023, SLOPD was not prepared for the incredibly large crowd of 3,000-4,000 people that showed up. You can watch a video from the event here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYkaOsCwBbA Again, during his debrief to the City Council after the event, Chief Scott did not admit that SLOPD was understaffed and caught off guard by a larger crowd than expected. He told the Council that it “wasn’t unexpected” that 3,000-4,000 people showed up in the neighborhood and that SLOPD was “staffed accordingly to address the concerns.” That was not true. He also said there would be an after-action analysis and would have ongoing dialogue with neighbors who live in the affected neighborhood. That also did not happen. He also said there would be an after-action report brought back to the Council, and Emily Francis asked about the timeline for the after-action report, but Chief Scott was evasive and did not have a timeline. Erica also asked about the after-action report. In fact, there was never an after-action report brought back to the Council for the public to hear. It was obvious to observers of St. Fratty’s Day 2023 that SLOPD was unprepared to handle the event. Videos of the event also show dangerous, illegal behavior that morning. EMS could not navigate the crowd. Dozens of people climbed utility poles. People were openly carrying and drinking alcohol. SLOPD officers stood around the perimeter and observed. Later, DC Fred 97 Mickel admitted on a couple of occasions that SLOPD was understaffed during the St. Fratty’s Day events before 2025 because they did not anticipate the number of people who showed up in the neighborhood. The ”Background” information provided in the Agenda further states: “As the crowds in 2024 grew even larger, the City’s departmental staffing became no longer sufficient to safely address and disperse the crowds gathered in the streets and properties near campus…” This implies that the staffing was sufficient in 2022 and 2023, which it was not. The Grand Jury investigated the City’s response from 2022 to 2024 and found that it was not sufficient, and the finding was correct. When someone (or an agency) is not honest about one thing, it makes people question their honesty about other things and hurts their overall credibility. The City should accept responsibility for the mistakes and celebrate the successes and lessons learned. Failing to take responsibility and making excuses makes the city look dishonest and erodes public confidence. Code Enforcement Failed to Investigate Complaints I sent an email to the Council and Community Development citing complaints I filed before fraternity rush events that were advertised on social media with specific dates, times, and addresses of the upcoming events. The fraternities held those events at the exact date, time, and address listed in my complaint, and none of them were cited by Code Enforcement. Michelle Shoresman said in an email that "the city can’t have eyes and ears everywhere", which seemed to excuse the City’s lack of enforcement. Her response was disheartening. Code Enforcement has continued to dismiss complaints of fraternity events at illegal fraternities in our neighborhood as unfounded, even when they are posted on the fraternity’s social media pages and we observe them happening. I’ve asked SLOPD for help to document the event as a fraternity-related event, and to cite it under the applicable code of illegal land use, but SLOPD leadership said they don’t handle that type of report and referred me to Code Enforcement. It's been a circular exercise that has not brought results, and the illegal fraternities continue to operate. The Grand Jury Findings During the City Council meeting in February 2025, DC Mickel gave the presentation for the plans for St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day 2025, he said SLOPD was reactive during previous years but had learned from their mistakes. Members of the Grand Jury were in the audience. The Jurors also had links to the Police Chief’s previous statements before and after St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, 2023 and 2024; recordings of the SCLC meetings where the Chief also made conflicting statements and Mila’s and Brett’s concerns were continually ignored and even criticized by other members of SCLC; and videos of St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, 2023, and 2024. They also had information about SLOPD policies and procedures, and statements made by two officers related to their response to noisy parties, which likely would not have been known to Christine Wallace. This may be why interviews with two police officers were requested by the Grand Jury, which was blocked by SLOPD, according to the Grand Jury report. The City also claims to have provided documentation, as requested by the Jurors. The findings in the Grand Jury report were based on everything that was provided to them and their observations of the neighborhood during weekends, over at least six months. The City had an ample opportunity to give them all the relevant information throughout the investigation. The City did not “fully cooperate” with the Grand Jury. The report says that the investigation was hampered because the Grand Jury was blocked from interviewing two police officers, despite repeated requests for interviews. The Jurors wanted answers relevant to some specific issues they were investigating that may not have been clear to the City, and it was not appropriate for the City to presume the Grand Jury did not need the testimony. I included the names of two officers in my complaint, and it was related to policy decisions and operations within SLOPD that would likely not be known to Christine Wallace, so that may have been the information they were seeking. The City claimed it would have taken up valuable time from the officers’ schedules, which is ludicrous. SLOPD leadership and officers sit in the audience during Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings, in case there are questions. They certainly had an hour to sit for an interview with the Grand Jury. It is disappointing that SLOPD did not fully cooperate with the Grand Jury, and two officers were prevented from testifying. 98 Beginning on Monday, June 16, 2025, there was a huge surge in activity on my husband's website HowToRuinANeighborhood.com, as multiple people origninating from SLO City (probably staff) went onto the website to search through all the tabs for information, presumably to prepare the response to the Grand Jury by June 20, 2025. I'm not sure what they were looking for, but the website contains video and other documentation related to the issues that were investigated by the Grand Jury. I am not sure if the Grand Jury even looked at the website. Finally, it is obvious that I have been invested in solving this problem for several years and have put my heart and soul into finding solutions. The reason I have made these efforts is because I DEEPLY love my home and property, with our beautiful view of Cerro San Luis from our kitchen and back deck, gardens we’ve cultivated over many years, and an ADU that was to provide income so we could retire. We did not want to be displaced and thought my efforts would result in enforcement and allow my husband and me to stay in our home. I felt as though I was fighting for our lives. When the City did not respond to help solve the issue, I went to the news, and they covered the story. Even the Editorial Board subsequently wrote an Editorial, urging the City to take action, but it has not. The story was picked up by the Daily Mail, and many people contacted us, including legitimate production companies who wanted to film a documentary about the issue. We did not want that sort of publicity and hoped the problem would be solved by the City. We also wrote to the Grand Jury, and they investigated the matter. The Grand Jury report gave us hope, but that was lost when we read the City's 27-page response. We gave up and decided to use our entire life savings for a down payment on a house in a quiet neighborhood, and needed co-signers to qualify for the payments. We do not have any retirement and will now try to get by month-to-month, with payments that exceed 70% of our income. Meanwhile, we, and others in the affected neighborhoods, have been damaged by the inaction of the City for several years. The City should own up to that. Please appoint Jan Marx and Emily Francis (or Mike Boswell) to the Ad Hoc Committee. The public deserves to provide input on this important issue. Thank you, Kathie Walker 12-01-2015 Item 14 - Action for Civility Report Recommendations.pdf 99 From:carolyn smith < Sent:Monday, July 14, 2025 8:55 AM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:City Council July 15, 2025 - Agenda Item 8a - Ad Hoc Council Committee re Grand Jury Report Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Mayor Stewart and Council Members: The Grand Jury investigation was instigated by residents who felt the city was continuing to fail in their duty to protect their neighborhoods from the dangerous drunken St. Fratty's Day event. The complaint was filed in June of 2024 after the police chief had announced to the city and the public that his department's enforcement plan that was used for the St. Fratty's Day event in March of 2024, the same plan used in prior years, was successful. This announcement was despite the continued growth of the rowdy drunken crowd rising from 2,000 in 2022 to 7,000+ in 2024, and despite the outcries from residents that it was indeed NOT a “success.” Residents feared that the St. Fratty's event in 2025 would be even larger and more dangerous since the chief was not acknowledging that more needed to be done. In fact, the council had insisted that the party had to end. The chief's announcement of success and denial of residents' pleas for better enforcement was the impetus that caused desperate fearful residents to file a Grand Jury Complaint. Fortunately, residents were finally taken seriously and coordinated efforts between the city and Cal Poly resulted in a positive result in 2025. Hopefully, that cooperation will continue next year, otherwise the event will recur. A second Grand Jury complaint was submitted by frustrated residents in the Alta Vista Neighborhood who have been pleading with the city to enforce its zoning codes to eliminate illegal fraternity operations in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods that have been ravaging their lives. After an extensive investigation by 19 impartial Grand Jurors, they concluded that the city has, in fact, failed to protect its residents by not enforcing its residential neighborhood zoning laws. Not only did the jurors perform extensive research, review records, and conduct interviews, but they also witnessed first hand the extremely disturbing large fraternity parties that occur in several residential neighborhoods adjacent to Cal Poly each weekend. That's more than anyone from the city has done. Each council member has been sent videos demonstrating the extreme disruptions from the unabated fraternity parties in the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods. Each council member has been invited to visit residents' homes on the weekends during the academic year to see first-hand what they have to endure but not one has taken up the invitation. Resident groups have met with council members and code enforcement officials only to hear the same excuses: insufficient staff and there's no money to hire more code enforcement personnel. This inaction has caused the problem only to get worse making these affected neighborhoods nearly unlivable as the Grand Jury concluded. Staff points out that noise complaints have been reduced since 2010 (a period of over FIFTEEN years), but what they fail to mention is that those numbers have remained at a nearly stagnant level for the past 10 years (hovering between 1400 and 1500). Many long-term residents have given up calling the police when little to nothing is done to stop the parties, resulting in many taking the drastic measure of moving away from their long-term homes, causing even more homes in those neighborhoods to turn into student rentals. This could be a contributing factor in the reduction of noise complaints. The city's efforts of having “meetings” with Cal Poly have proven to be futile since nothing ever comes out of those meetings that resolves the problems. The Civility Report Staff mentions was an effort completed YEARS ago and the fraternities operating illegally in R-1 and R-2 zones is a more recent occurrence not even considered in that endeavor. 100 Staff also mentions the efforts of SCLC as a method of helping to resolve town/gown issues. I was RQN's representative on SCLC for five years until the pandemic. Unfortunately, since then, the mission statement of the committee has changed (instigated by Cal Poly with concurrence by the city), resulting in a chilling effect for residents in bringing up problems in neighborhoods impacted by student rentals. Thus, there's little to no coordinated effort to actually deal with the illegal fraternity operations causing neighborhood problems in that committee. It has become an exchange of information group with little to no conversations on how to solve town/gown problems. Additionally, over city staff's objections, Cal Poly is purposely violating AB 524 by erasing previously provided street addresses where their fraternities are operating while claiming they're acting within the law. It appears, however, there have been no efforts made by the city to adjudicate this dispute. Further, the city should be making Cal Poly accountable for inviting new fraternities without providing accommodation for them. Cal Poly should not be sanctioning fraternity parties without Staff or Cal Poly PD doing any on-site monitoring for noise or other infractions to protect neighborhood residents from the mayhem they've been experiencing from these sanctioned parties and events. Therefore, if you feel you must form an ad hoc committee to respond to the Grand Jury Report, please focus your response on how the city is going to do better to resolve the problem of fraternities illegally operating in R-1 and R-2 zones. Perhaps your response could include that (1) the city is going to form a task force comprised of city staff and residents negatively affected by these illegal operations (with the addition of Cal Poly sometime during the process), in an attempt to begin actually doing som ething concrete to address the violation of our zoning codes by Cal Poly fraternities that are destroying residents' quality of life in neighborhoods; (2) the city will fund an additional code enforcement official to exclusively deal with the fraternity zoning code violations and relieve the neighborhoods from these illegal operations; (3) the city intends to adjudicate the actions of Cal Poly removing street addresses of their fraternity operations from their reporting required under AB 524. These responses would be effective in demonstrating a genuine plan of action to help residents negatively affected by the ever- increasing population of Cal Poly students and fraternity operations in our once peaceful family neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Carolyn Smith SLO City Resident 101 From:Marx, Jan Sent:Monday, July 14, 2025 8:50 AM To:James, Dillon Subject:FW: Ad Hoc Committee (Item 8a.) and clarification of "Background" provided in the agenda Attachments:St. Frattys 2022 Calls from Police Log to jpg.pdf Please print this out, including attachments. Thanks Jan From: kathie walker < Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2025 12:58 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Ad Hoc Committee (Item 8a.) and clarification of "Background" provided in the agenda Dear City Councilmembers, I have been closely following the City Council and policy decisions in San Luis Obispo for over a decade and have a good understanding of the historical context of several issues. There is value in understanding that history. When there is turnover in City leadership and new Councilmembers are elected, or new staff leadership is hired, they usually do not fully understand the complexities of the background that led to certain policies. Jan Marx is the most knowledgeable about the subject investigated by the Grand Jury. I have watched her input be dismissed at times, despite her expertise in these issues, which is unfortunate. When it comes to noise in the Alta Vista neighborhood, Ms. Marx lived it firsthand. It got worse after she moved away, and a lot more illegal fraternities moved into the neighborhood, but she is the most experienced person on the Council and is familiar with the relevant issues. Ms. Marx should be on the Ad Hoc Committee to respond to the Grand Jury. It appears that the mayor must comment according to California Penal Code 933. It’s not clear whether that means she would also be on the Ad Hoc committee. If so, she would be an asset. Otherwise, I recommend that the second member of the Ad Hoc Committee be Emily Francis or Mike Boswell. I feel that Jan’s input should be considered for who she feels would be the best fit to work together for this important role. Some of my reasons for not including Michelle Shoresman are included in the correspondence below. This is nothing personal against Michelle, and I think she is a nice person. However, she has failed to recognize the issue, has not supported Jan Marx’s attempt to have the item agendized (Erica Stewart did support the idea), has minimized the failure of the City, including Code Enforcement, to respond to complaints, among several other things that seems to indicate she is more aligned with City staff and Cal Poly than concerned about the constituents who elected her to represent them. The Council agenda for July 15, 2025, item 8a, lists the “Background” of the City’s efforts toward “neighborhood wellness”. Some of the information provided on the agenda is false. I want to provide the correct information so that the misinformation can be corrected. Also, I hope that you focus on the core issues that are relevant to the CURRENT situation by acknowledging the ext ent to which it exists. Programs and Policies The Background in the agenda says, “many of the approaches have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings,” and lists various programs and policies. 102 We have lived in the neighborhood since the inception of these programs and policies, and can unequivocally tell you that despite each of the listed items, the noise exponentially increased in the Fall of 2021. This correlates to the significant increase i n illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood. Several fraternities moved near our home in 2021, and many were the Main Chapter houses of Cal Poly's fraternities. Even more moved in in the Fall of 2022, including one right next door and another directly across the street from our home. More were established in 2023, also near our home on Kentucky and Stafford (496 Kentucky and 1350 Stafford) and on Stafford (1271, 1273, and 1275 Stafford). And even more were added nearby in 2024, including 1276 Bond. That does not include the dozens of others, which I will not list here, but I have previously provided the addresses. Each of them held fraternity-related events throughout the year, including rush events and sorority exchanges. The increased noise level in the Fall of 2021 was documented by first-hand accounts of long-term residents in several “neighborhood group” email exchanges. That’s when I started sending videos of fraternity parties to the City because loud parties at illegal fraternities that could be heard from a block away were being cleared by SLOPD as a negative violation or unable to locate. Prior to the Fall of 2021, I had never contacted SLOPD about noisy parties because they were not such a huge issue as they were beginning in the Fall of 2021. I never had any correspondence with SLOPD Chief Cantrell or Chief Linden whatsoever, because it was not necessary. I only sent one email to Chief Gessell related to the ongoing fireworks set off on Stafford at the rugby house, next to Sid and Isabel Marques. He was responsive and respectful and went to the house with the Fire Marshall. There was never another fireworks incident from that property. But since the Fall of 2021, the noise from the illegal fraternities has gotten progressively worse each year, and most of the long- term residents on the original email chain have left the neighborhood. I have corresponded with SLOPD leadership many, many times since then without resolution. It has been enormously frustrating. The issues have also been brought up in public forums such as the City Council and the SCLC, and the pushback and dishonesty from Police Chief Scott have been especially disheartening. Civility Report The City references the “Neighborhood Wellness Community Civility Working Group,” which worked on a plan for a couple of years to promote neighborhood wellness and produced a 90-page Final Report published in Spring 2015. There were six objectives in the Final Report. I have attached a condensed version, which was attached to a City Council Agenda on 12/1/2025, when the Council recommended expanding the SCLC to include two more residents who were “most directly involved with neighborhood wellness.” The Chair of the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Karen Adler, was one of two people on the working group to address Objective One. She is still the Chair of AVNA, and her home is also now surrounded by illegal fraternities. She has expressed her extreme displeasure with the lack of enforcement by the City of illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood. It is ridiculous for the City to continue to minimize the problem and not take meaningful action to fix it. Below are the six objectives from the Civility Report. None of the recommendations for Objective One, shown below, are currently implemented: 103 I am fairly certain that none of the recommendations in Objective Two related to neighborhood wellness are currently implemented, except maybe the City sends information to college students about trash collection. 104 Of all the recommendations listed in Objective Three, the only item that I know is currently implemented is the party registr ation program. It should be noted that RQN opposed that policy when it was adopted and is still opposed to the program. When a party is registered, SLOPD does not respond, and the reporting party is told to call back in 20 minutes if the party is still going. Fraternities were registering parties with over 100 people, and the nearby neighbors were woken by the party, then had to call SLOPD, and there were no consequences. It’s essentially a ‘free pass’ to have a loud party. Also, live bands are sometimes registered, even though they are not allowed by the program, but they get a warning call, and there are no consequences. The neighborhood is still disturbed by the loud music and guests leaving after the party is broken up, which can last an hour. The SCLC is also listed as a collaborative measure; however, the MOU for SCLC was recently revised to dilute the original pur pose of addressing issues between college students and nearby neighborhoods, and the neighborhood representatives for geographical neighborhoods and member-at-large are now elected rather than appointed by the Neighborhood Associations. Last year, two SCLC members brought up the illegal fraternity issue at every single meeting, and it was never addressed within the SCLC. 105 106 Objective Four mostly relates to law enforcement between Cal Poly and the City. One item related to neighborhood wellness was assigned to SCLC to “change the student culture related to neighborhood wellness”. As discussed, the most significant issue related to noise issues in the neighborhoods near campus, spreading to other neighborhoods in northern SLO, has not been discussed at the SCLC despite being brought up during every meeting. 107 Objective Five has one item, and I am not convinced that the City has “effectively informed the community on matters of neighborhood wellness” in an annual communications plan, especially related to illegal fraternity operations, which are the largest negative impact on affected neighborhoods. Objective Six is solely about SCLC. The action item of shifting memberships “to directly involve those individuals most directly involved in neighborhood wellness” is not currently happening. Aside from one RQN representative, there are only two 'neighborhood representatives', including the neighborhood-at-large representative, Abe Lincoln. He does not live in an affected neighborhood, does not belong to any group related to neighborhood wellness, and has criticized other representatives and community members for bringing up problems with noise and the illegal fraternity operations in the neighborhoods. Abe is a nice guy, but does not meet the qualifications intended for the seat he is occupying, and the proposed representative by the 108 Neighborhood Groups was rejected, even though they did meet the qualifications of the seat, and the MOU said that the Neighborhood Groups shall appoint that member. The perspective from neighborhoods most directly involved with noise is extremely diluted by the larger membership of Cal Poly and City representatives. The other two action items of an annual report and a town hall are not currently implemented. The SCLC meetings are subject to the Brown Act, but are not recorded and archived for the public, but they should be. Cal Poly Did Not Enforce the Zoning Ordinance When It Knew of the Illegal Fraternities in 2015 The City Council, City Manager, and other leadership knew about the small number of illegal fraternities on Hathway Avenue in 2015 because after the roof collapse on St. Fratty’s Day that year, Cal Poly hired an independent agency to investigate the incident. The report cited fraternities at 348 Hathway and “others” also on Hathway. That report was presented to the City Council and is included in an Agenda in 2015. SLOPD has also been aware of the illegal fraternity houses on Hathway since that time. Christine Wallace has said that the police department was very familiar with the identified Greek houses on Hathway dating back many years. Nonetheless, the City failed to enforce the zoning regulations in 2015 and set the stage for an explosion of more illegal fra ternity houses moving into the neighborhood. The fraternity members probably thought it was legal for them to operate because the City never took any proactive measures to stop their operations. Today, there are over 40 illegal fraternities in Alta Vista, and several others in Monterey Heights. There are also some west of Santa Rosa/Hwy 1. Cal Poly and Its Fraternities are Intentionally Breaking the Law For the past two academic years, Cal Poly administration, Greek Life staff, and IFC leadership have known it is not legal for them to operate in R1/R2 neighborhoods, but they have ignored the City’s laws. They host rush events to recruit new members and regularly hold blow-out fraternity events at their illegal fraternities in residential neighborhoods. We know these events are “fraternity-related” because they follow certain protocols, as required by Cal Poly Greek Life’s Event Registration Policy. Some indicators are fraternity member 'guards' at the front door wearing construction vests or shirts that say “security”, and they check in guests with laptops. I am certain that SLOPD is also familiar with these practices. The guests that go to the parties are 90% female and often are dressed in similar colors or themes, which indicates they are "exchanges" and registered beforehand with Cal Poly. The fraternities also post photos of events on Instagram at the illegal fraternity houses, whose 109 addresses have been previously documented by the City and which have identifiable features on their homes that are seen in the photos. Most of the Main Chapter Houses for Cal Poly’s 19 fraternities are in R1/R2 neighborhoods. Decrease in Noise vs. Increase in Illegal Fraternities The Background in the agenda cites a 45% decrease in noise complaints to SLOPD since 2010. This argument is a red herring to divert attention from the current issue and attempts to distract from the fact that the problem is ongoing and unresolved in the neighborhoods in the northern part of SLO, which is the subject of the Grand Jury’s report. In 2010, there were not 50+ illegal fraternity houses, and the noise complaints to SLOPD did not regularly include parties of 100-300 people in single-family neighborhoods, as they do today! Context matters. Some weekends, nearly 50% of all noise calls citywide are from fraternities, mostly illegally operating in the single-family neighborhoods. Also, many of the long-term residents have moved from these neighborhoods because they could not tolerate the noise from these illegal fraternity operations. It is disingenuous to minimize the immense problem that the residents of these neighborhoods endure every weekend that Cal Poly is in session, which was witnessed firsthand by the members of the Grand Jury. The City should admit there’s a problem, accept the recommendations, and move forward. Let’s work to solve the issue and hold those who are responsible accountable so the people who live in the neighborhoods can have the quiet enjoyment of their homes. DACs & Citations Are Usually Not Accurate When a DAC or noise citation is issued, the number of guests at a party is self-reported to SNAP or SLOPD by the person receiving the DAC or noise citation. For example, Delta Upsilon has an illegal fraternity house at 281 Albert Drive, and they hosted a concert there in May 2025. There were HUNDREDS of people in the backyard. You can see the party in a 1-minute video on their Instagram page here: https://www.instagram.com/p/DJXia7Uh8kO/?img_index=1 or here: https://vimeo.com/1094575248?share=copy#t=0 I SLOPD issued a noise citation to a Delta Upsilon fraternity member at 281 Albert Drive, and the citation said there were 50 people at that concert/party when there were actually at least 300 people. Law enforcement does not enter yards or count people. They ask the person getting the citation how many people are at the event, so the number on the citation is often not accurate, as people will say there is a lower number than the actual number of guests. It also does not reflect the impact of the event on the neighborhood. If the City is using this “data,” just know that it is self-reported by the offender and is not necessarily accurate. One other important point is that parties like the one shown in the video are common in the neighborhood and are rarely cited as unruly gatherings. There are parties that meet the legal standard of unruly gatherings every weekend that Cal Poly is in session, but very few are cited as unruly gatherings. Sometimes, SNAP responds to documented illegal fraternity houses that received letters from Code Enforcement, so a citation can’t even be issued unless SNAP calls SLOPD, but they usually don’t. If SLOPD were to cite these parties as unruly gatherings (which they are, according to the SLOMC), it would likely make an impact to stop them from continuing. Street Closure During St. Fratty’s Day 2022 In the agenda for 7/15/2025, the City claims, “It was not until 2023 that any extended street closure occurred in response to the party…” That is false. The neighborhood streets were barricaded by SLOPD in 2022 when about 2,000 people overtook the streets near our home. On March 12, 2022, St. Fratty’s Day, we were woken by fireworks at 4 a.m. Loud music was coming from MANY houses in the neighborhood because the party was pre-planned, according to many social media posts made on Friday, March 11, 2022, that talked about the St. Fratty’s Day party on Hathway in the early morning hours the next day. By 6 a.m., the intersection at Bond and Hathway was completely overtaken by the illegal street party, and people spanned from Fredericks to Carpenter and up Bond toward Kentucky Street. It was still dark outside, and I took a video of the crowd with my phone. 110 By around 7 a.m., SLOPD officers had blocked off the neighborhood with their vehicles. SLOPD had barricaded Hathway Avenue from Fredericks Street to Carpenter, and Bond Street was barricaded from Hathway Avenue to Kentucky Street. Officers at Fredericks and Hathway told me they had called their supervisor to the scene. I sent a timeline to the City Council of the SLOPD log from that morning to show the number of calls to our neighborhood. Some calls went unanswered for hours because there were not enough officers on duty to respond. Two of the calls I made to SLOPD did not even show up on the police log, including for a party at 348 Hathway, where many people were partying on the roof. It was one of the worst offenders that morning, and there was no response from SLOPD. My neighbor on Hathway also told me he called SLOPD, and his call was not listed. The log is attached to this email. Michelle Shoresman’s response to my email seemed to indicate that my “standards” were not realistic and that SLOPD had adequately handled the matter: “Thanks for the call log. I know you are frustrated and probably don’t think it’s sufficient, but I do happen to note that there are a large number of citations that were made, and even several arrests. I would think this is likely an improvement over past years, even if not still “enough” by your standards.” The truth is that the response in 2022 was not an improvement over past years because our neighborhood was not overtaken by thousands of people for an illegal street party before or after St. Fratty’s Day 2015, when a roof collapsed and ended the party by 6:30 a.m. In any event, the neighborhood streets were barricaded by SLOPD during St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, so hopefully the record is corrected. SLOPD Chief Rick Scott’s Statements to the Council Were Not True Since 2022, the SLOPD Chief Rick Scott has often falsely claimed that this event was “historically” large, as though it had happened in previous years after the roof collapse, but that is not true. We have lived in the neighborhood since St. Fratty’s Day was “founded” in 2009 by a fraternity at 348 Hathway Ave. It was not a street party until 2015, when the roof collapsed at around 6:15 a.m. It seems the Police Chief makes blanket statements, as though there have been illegal street parties during St. Fratty’s Day all along, to deflect the responsibility that, under his leadership, the neighborhood was taken over by thousands of people in 2022, 2023, and 2024. At a Council meeting on 3/15/2022, after St. Fratty’s Day, Chief Scott debriefed the Council: “We have been planning for St. Patrick’s Day for some time now…” and he minimized the magnitude of the event. He said it took “a couple of hours to get the situation under control,” when it actually lasted almost 6 hours, beginning at 4 a.m. He claimed SLOPD was “staffed up” for the event, anticipating crowds similar to numbers before the COVID-19 shutdown. SLOPD did not have additional staff that morning, and Deputy Chief Mickel explained that they were lucky that it happened near shift change, so they could hold over the night officers as the day officers came on duty. (DC Mickel was honest and transparent about the situation, and we appreciate him very much.) St. Fratty’s Day reemerged in 2022 and progressively got worse until it was finally stopped in 2025. The Grand Jury was corre ct in its finding that the event was not handled appropriately in 2022, 2023, and 2024 because SLOPD did not have enough staff to adequately handle the event. DC Mickel admitted that SLOPD was not prepared in 2023 during an RQN meeting. He also referenced the mistakes and failure of SLOPD to fully prepare in previous years (2022-2024) during his presentation to the Council on SLOPD’s plans for 2025. Council Meeting on March 15, 2022, after St. Fratty’s Day 2022 (before St. Patrick’s Day on March 17) During the Council meeting on 3/15/2022, Jan Marx asked that the Council agendize St. Fratty’s Day for discussion. While Erica Stewart supported a future conversation on an agenda, Michelle Shoresman did not support Ms. Marx’s suggestion. Ms. Shoresman said she didn’t want to agendize discussion on the expansion of the Safety Enhancement Zone to include St. Fratty’s Day and said “putting it in the bike rack” would work best for her. 111 It was disappointing that Ms. Shoresman did not give credit to Ms. Marx’s first-hand experience with the event and did not support even a discussion of the matter on a future agenda. Carlyn Christianson was also adamant in not agendizing the item, saying the trend was downwards and was of no concern. Emily Francis and Mike Boswell were not on the City Council then. Warning Before St. Fratty’s 2023 That Was Ignored and SLOPD Was Not Prepared St. Fratty’s Day is typically held on the Saturday before winter finals, and not necessarily the Saturday before St. Patrick’s Day. The event is centered around finals because many students leave town during the week of finals, and the students want to par ty while most are still in town. This should be noted for future years, since Cal Poly is converting to a semester system. In July 2022, I warned the City and SLOPD about St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s Day occurring on Friday/Saturday on the same weekend in 2023 and sent the graphic below to show the perfect-storm scenario that would likely result in an expansion and surge of partiers for St. Fratty’s Day. I thought that the failure to have an aggressive plan would result in legitimizing the event, which would cause the event to continue to gain traction and grow. Looking back, I believe the failure of SLOPD to have an adequate plan in 2023 set in motion the exponential growth of the event the following year. At that point, in 2024, it was too late for a Safety Enhancement Zone to have any meaningful effect. St. Fratty’s Day 2023 During the morning of St. Fratty’s Day 2023, SLOPD was not prepared for the incredibly large crowd of 3,000-4,000 people that showed up. You can watch a video from the event here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYkaOsCwBbA Again, during his debrief to the City Council after the event, Chief Scott did not admit that SLOPD was understaffed and caught off guard by a larger crowd than expected. He told the Council that it “wasn’t unexpected” that 3,000-4,000 people showed up in the neighborhood and that SLOPD was “staffed accordingly to address the concerns.” That was not true. He also said there would be an after-action analysis and would have ongoing dialogue with neighbors who live in the affected neighborhood. That also did not happen. He also said there would be an after-action report brought back to the Council, and Emily Francis asked about the timeline for the after-action report, but Chief Scott was evasive and did not have a timeline. Erica also asked about the after-action report. In fact, there was never an after-action report brought back to the Council for the public to hear. It was obvious to observers of St. Fratty’s Day 2023 that SLOPD was unprepared to handle the event. Videos of the event also show dangerous, illegal behavior that morning. EMS could not navigate the crowd. Dozens of people climbed utility poles. People were openly carrying and drinking alcohol. SLOPD officers stood around the perimeter and observed. Later, DC Fred 112 Mickel admitted on a couple of occasions that SLOPD was understaffed during the St. Fratty’s Day events before 2025 because they did not anticipate the number of people who showed up in the neighborhood. The ”Background” information provided in the Agenda further states: “As the crowds in 2024 grew even larger, the City’s departmental staffing became no longer sufficient to safely address and disperse the crowds gathered in the streets and properties near campus…” This implies that the staffing was sufficient in 2022 and 2023, which it was not. The Grand Jury investigated the City’s response from 2022 to 2024 and found that it was not sufficient, and the finding was correct. When someone (or an agency) is not honest about one thing, it makes people question their honesty about other things and hurts their overall credibility. The City should accept responsibility for the mistakes and celebrate the successes and lessons learned. Failing to take responsibility and making excuses makes the city look dishonest and erodes public confidence. Code Enforcement Failed to Investigate Complaints I sent an email to the Council and Community Development citing complaints I filed before fraternity rush events that were advertised on social media with specific dates, times, and addresses of the upcoming events. The fraternities held those events at the exact date, time, and address listed in my complaint, and none of them were cited by Code Enforcement. Michelle Shoresman said in an email that "the city can’t have eyes and ears everywhere", which seemed to excuse the City’s lack of enforcement. Her response was disheartening. Code Enforcement has continued to dismiss complaints of fraternity events at illegal fraternities in our neighborhood as unfounded, even when they are posted on the fraternity’s social media pages and we observe them happening. I’ve asked SLOPD for help to document the event as a fraternity-related event, and to cite it under the applicable code of illegal land use, but SLOPD leadership said they don’t handle that type of report and referred me to Code Enforcement. It's been a circular exercise that has not brought results, and the illegal fraternities continue to operate. The Grand Jury Findings During the City Council meeting in February 2025, DC Mickel gave the presentation for the plans for St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day 2025, he said SLOPD was reactive during previous years but had learned from their mistakes. Members of the Grand Jury were in the audience. The Jurors also had links to the Police Chief’s previous statements before and after St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, 2023 and 2024; recordings of the SCLC meetings where the Chief also made conflicting statements and Mila’s and Brett’s concerns were continually ignored and even criticized by other members of SCLC; and videos of St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, 2023, and 2024. They also had information about SLOPD policies and procedures, and statements made by two officers related to their response to noisy parties, which likely would not have been known to Christine Wallace. This may be why interviews with two police officers were requested by the Grand Jury, which was blocked by SLOPD, according to the Grand Jury report. The City also claims to have provided documentation, as requested by the Jurors. The findings in the Grand Jury report were based on everything that was provided to them and their observations of the neighborhood during weekends, over at least six months. The City had an ample opportunity to give them all the relevant information throughout the investigation. The City did not “fully cooperate” with the Grand Jury. The report says that the investigation was hampered because the Grand Jury was blocked from interviewing two police officers, despite repeated requests for interviews. The Jurors wanted answers relevant to some specific issues they were investigating that may not have been clear to the City, and it was not appropriate for the City to presume the Grand Jury did not need the testimony. I included the names of two officers in my complaint, and it was related to policy decisions and operations within SLOPD that would likely not be known to Christine Wallace, so that may have been the information they were seeking. The City claimed it would have taken up valuable time from the officers’ schedules, which is ludicrous. SLOPD leadership and officers sit in the audience during Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings, in case there are questions. They certainly had an hour to sit for an interview with the Grand Jury. It is disappointing that SLOPD did not fully cooperate with the Grand Jury, and two officers were prevented from testifying. 113 Beginning on Monday, June 16, 2025, there was a huge surge in activity on my husband's website HowToRuinANeighborhood.com, as multiple people origninating from SLO City (probably staff) went onto the website to search through all the tabs for information, presumably to prepare the response to the Grand Jury by June 20, 2025. I'm not sure what they were looking for, but the website contains video and other documentation related to the issues that were investigated by the Grand Jury. I am not sure if the Grand Jury even looked at the website. Finally, it is obvious that I have been invested in solving this problem for several years and have put my heart and soul into finding solutions. The reason I have made these efforts is because I DEEPLY love my home and property, with our beautiful view of Cerro San Luis from our kitchen and back deck, gardens we’ve cultivated over many years, and an ADU that was to provide income so we could retire. We did not want to be displaced and thought my efforts would result in enforcement and allow my husband and me to stay in our home. I felt as though I was fighting for our lives. When the City did not respond to help solve the issue, I went to the news, and they covered the story. Even the Editorial Board subsequently wrote an Editorial, urging the City to take action, but it has not. The story was picked up by the Daily Mail, and many people contacted us, including legitimate production companies who wanted to film a documentary about the issue. We did not want that sort of publicity and hoped the problem would be solved by the City. We also wrote to the Grand Jury, and they investigated the matter. The Grand Jury report gave us hope, but that was lost when we read the City's 27-page response. We gave up and decided to use our entire life savings for a down payment on a house in a quiet neighborhood, and needed co-signers to qualify for the payments. We do not have any retirement and will now try to get by month-to-month, with payments that exceed 70% of our income. Meanwhile, we, and others in the affected neighborhoods, have been damaged by the inaction of the City for several years. The City should own up to that. Please appoint Jan Marx and Emily Francis (or Mike Boswell) to the Ad Hoc Committee. The public deserves to provide input on this important issue. Thank you, Kathie Walker 12-01-2015 Item 14 - Action for Civility Report Recommendations.pdf Call time Arrived Cleared Response time Address Type Outcome4:21 4:39 4:42 18 min 208 Hathway Loud party/Fireworks No violation4:38 4:42 4:52 4 min 260 Santa Lucia*Fireworks No report 4:51 4:57 5:15 6 min 146 Stenner*Loud yelling/music Citation 5:09 5:22 5:22 13 min 561 Luneta*Loud music Unable to Locate 5:11 5:18 5:33 7 min 322 Hathway Music & Fireworks DAC 5:50 5:54 6:03 4 min Hathway Alley Gathering per YikYak Unable to Locate 6:11 6:12 6:23 1 min 281 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 6:12 n/a 6:25 canceled 1784 McCollum*Noisy crowd in street Canceled 6:30 6:31 6:35 1 min 1218 Bond Noise/Party Citation 6:30 10:02 3 hr 32 min 451 Chorro*Noise/Party No violation 6:39 6:39 6:47 0 min**274 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 6:52 0 min**281 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 6:56 7:07 7:47 11 min 306 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 7:08 7:08 7:29 0 min**Bond & Hathway Intoxicated Person Arrest PC647(F) 7:13 7:13 7:29 0 min**1213 Bond Intoxicated Person Arrest PC647(F) 7:20 9:15 9:18 1 hr 55 min 1441 Slack*Noisy people No report 7:26 7:26 7:33 0 min**208 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 7:47 7:48 7:53 1 min 281 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 7:50 7:50 7:57 0 min**Hathway & Fredericks UIP Citation 8:00 8:00 8:16 0 min**Hathway & Carpenter Intoxicated Person Arrest PC647(F) 8:01 9:49 9:51 1 hr 48 min 175 Hathway Large Party 100+ UIP No violation 8:07 9:22 9:22 1 hr 15 min Loomis & Graves*Noisy people Unable to Locate 8:15 8:15 8:38 0 min**291 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 8:21 8:21 8:42 0 min**200 Block Hathway Assault/Oth Weapon Report to follow 8:25 8:25 8:35 0 min**291 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 8:38 10:09 10:10 1 hr 31 min 334 Foothill*Noisy people No violation 7:00 AM -Multiple police vehicles posted at intersections in neighborhood (3 hours after initial disturbances) Officers standing at Fredericks/Hathway say they've called their supervisor to respond to the scene Timeline of events on 3/12/2022 "St. Fratty's Day" College student-aged people have begun to gather in street at Hathway/Bond and loud parties are throughout neighborhood Large crowds have overtaken Hathway Ave from Carpenter to Fredericks overflowing onto Bond SLOPD POLICE LOG - 3/12/2022 5:15 AM - Police increasing presence in lower Alta Vista neighborhood (1 hour after initial disturbances) KAPPA SIGMA KAPPA SIGMA ALPHA SIGMA PHI KAPPA SIGMA KAPPA SIGMA 9:02 9:03 9:07 1 min 208 Hathway Noise/Party Citation9:03 9:07 9:17 4 min 133 Orange Noise/Party Citation9:19 9:19 9:29 0 min**191 Orange Noise/Party Citation9:26 9:28 9:41 2 min 1220 Fredericks Noise/Party-ppl on roof Citation10:02 10:13 10:26 11 min 1050 Foothill - The SLO Apts*Noise/Party Citation10:26 12:03 12:07 1 hr 36 min 200 Block Kentucky Large Party-ppl on roof Unable to Locate11:01 11:01 11:35 0 min**Longview DUI Arrest 11:11 11:42 11:43 31 min Kentucky Alley Males kicking…No report12:09 12:18 12:22 9 min 1700 Kentucky Large Party-ppl on roof No violation12:13 13:19 13:27 1 hr 6 min 1050 Foothill - The SLO Apts*Noise/Party No violation***St. Fratty's Day is meant to start at 4am and be over by mid-mornnig (i.e. 4am - 10am)By 10:00 AM - 6 hours after the initial disturbances - the lower Alta Vista neighborhood has mostly quieted down*** Police are back in their vehicles and "mopping up" after crowd dispersed*Outside of the lower-Alta Vista neighborhood which is the area targeted for St. Fratty's Day**zero (0) min response could be officer observation and not a "call" for service 114 From:kathie walker < Sent:Sunday, July 13, 2025 6:49 PM To:CityClerk Subject:Please redact my email My email address was not redacted in the following email: 7/15/2025 Item 8a, Walker. Please redact those details. Also, I sent an email to Councilmembers this weekend that was forwarded to the Clerk by Michelle Shoresman. It contains my personal medical information that I did not want to be made public, and was not meant to be published on this Agenda. I sent it to my elected representatives so they would better understand the context of the City's inaction related to the illegal fraternity operations, and copied some of my neighbors who know what's gone on. It's not the end of the world if that information is made public, but it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. I'm not sure that the correspondence is specifically relevant to this particular agenda item but I trust the City Attorney would know. I did send one other email related to 8a, as a follow-up on the other "Background" in the agenda that was meant to supplement a previous email about the City's "Background" and SCLC. That one was meant for the 8a folder in Agenda Correspondence. Thank you, Kathie 115 From:kathie walker < Sent:Sunday, July 13, 2025 12:58 PM To:Marx, Jan; Francis, Emily; Boswell, Mike; Shoresman, Michelle; Stewart, Erica A; E-mail Council Website Subject:Ad Hoc Committee (Item 8a.) and clarification of "Background" provided in the agenda Attachments:St. Frattys 2022 Calls from Police Log to jpg.pdf Dear City Councilmembers, I have been closely following the City Council and policy decisions in San Luis Obispo for over a decade and have a good understanding of the historical context of several issues. There is value in understanding that history. When there is turnover in City leadership and new Councilmembers are elected, or new staff leadership is hired, they usually do not fully understand the complexities of the background that led to certain policies. Jan Marx is the most knowledgeable about the subject investigated by the Grand Jury. I have watched her input be dismissed at times, despite her expertise in these issues, which is unfortunate. When it comes to noise in the Alta Vista neighborhood, Ms. Marx lived it firsthand. It got worse after she moved away, and a lot more illegal fraternities moved into the neighborhood, but she is the most experienced person on the Council and is familiar with the relevant issues. Ms. Marx should be on the Ad Hoc Committee to respond to the Grand Jury. It appears that the mayor must comment according to California Penal Code 933. It’s not clear whether that means she would also be on the Ad Hoc committee. If so, she would be an asset. Otherwise, I recommend that the second member of the Ad Hoc Committee be Emily Francis or Mike Boswell. I feel that Jan’s input should be considered for who she feels would be the best fit to work together for this important role. Some of my reasons for not including Michelle Shoresman are included in the correspondence below. This is nothing personal against Michelle, and I think she is a nice person. However, she has failed to recognize the issue, has not supported Jan Marx’s attempt to have the item agendized (Erica Stewart did support the idea), has minimized the failure of the City, including Code Enforcement, to respond to complaints, among several other things that seems to indicate she is more aligned with City staff and Cal Poly than concerned about the constituents who elected her to represent them. The Council agenda for July 15, 2025, item 8a, lists the “Background” of the City’s efforts toward “neighborhood wellness”. Some of the information provided on the agenda is false. I want to provide the correct information so that the misinformation can be corrected. Also, I hope that you focus on the core issues that are relevant to the CURRENT situation by acknowledging the ext ent to which it exists. Programs and Policies The Background in the agenda says, “many of the approaches have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings,” and lists various programs and policies. We have lived in the neighborhood since the inception of these programs and policies, and can unequivocally tell you that despite each of the listed items, the noise exponentially increased in the Fall of 2021. This correlates to the significant increase i n illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood. Several fraternities moved near our home in 2021, and many were the Main Chapter houses of Cal Poly's fraternities. Even more moved in in the Fall of 2022, including one right next door and another directly across the street from our home. More were established in 2023, also near our home on Kentucky and Stafford (496 Kentucky and 1350 Stafford) and on Stafford (1271, 1273, and 1275 Stafford). And even more were added nearby in 2024, including 1276 Bond. That does not include the dozens of others, which I will not list here, but I have previously provided the addresses. Each of them held fraternity-related events throughout the year, including rush events and sorority exchanges. 116 The increased noise level in the Fall of 2021 was documented by first-hand accounts of long-term residents in several “neighborhood group” email exchanges. That’s when I started sending videos of fraternity parties to the City because loud parties at illegal fraternities that could be heard from a block away were being cleared by SLOPD as a negative violation or unable to locate. Prior to the Fall of 2021, I had never contacted SLOPD about noisy parties because they were not such a huge issue as they were beginning in the Fall of 2021. I never had any correspondence with SLOPD Chief Cantrell or Chief Linden whatsoever, because it was not necessary. I only sent one email to Chief Gessell related to the ongoing fireworks set off on Stafford at the rugby house, next to Sid and Isabel Marques. He was responsive and respectful and went to the house with the Fire Marshall. There was never another fireworks incident from that property. But since the Fall of 2021, the noise from the illegal fraternities has gotten progressively worse each year, and most of the long- term residents on the original email chain have left the neighborhood. I have corresponded with SLOPD leadership many, many times since then without resolution. It has been enormously frustrating. The issues have also been brought up in public forums such as the City Council and the SCLC, and the pushback and dishonesty from Police Chief Scott have been especially disheartening. Civility Report The City references the “Neighborhood Wellness Community Civility Working Group,” which worked on a plan for a couple of years to promote neighborhood wellness and produced a 90-page Final Report published in Spring 2015. There were six objectives in the Final Report. I have attached a condensed version, which was attached to a City Council Agenda on 12/1/2025, when the Council recommended expanding the SCLC to include two more residents who were “most directly involved with neighborhood wellness.” The Chair of the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Karen Adler, was one of two people on the working group to address Objective One. She is still the Chair of AVNA, and her home is also now surrounded by illegal fraternities. She has expressed her extreme displeasure with the lack of enforcement by the City of illegal fraternity houses in our neighborhood. It is ridiculous for the City to continue to minimize the problem and not take meaningful action to fix it. Below are the six objectives from the Civility Report. None of the recommendations for Objective One, shown below, are currently implemented: 117 I am fairly certain that none of the recommendations in Objective Two related to neighborhood wellness are currently implemented, except maybe the City sends information to college students about trash collection. Of all the recommendations listed in Objective Three, the only item that I know is currently implemented is the party registr ation program. It should be noted that RQN opposed that policy when it was adopted and is still opposed to the program. When a party is registered, SLOPD does not respond, and the reporting party is told to call back in 20 minutes if the party is still going. Fraternities were registering parties with over 100 people, and the nearby neighbors were woken by the party, then had to call SLOPD, and there were no consequences. It’s essentially a ‘free pass’ to have a loud party. Also, live bands are sometimes registered, even though they are not allowed by the program, but they get a warning call, and there are no consequences. The neighborhood is still disturbed by the loud music and guests leaving after the party is broken up, which can last an hour. The SCLC is also listed as a collaborative measure; however, the MOU for SCLC was recently revised to dilute the original pur pose of addressing issues between college students and nearby neighborhoods, and the neighborhood representatives for geographical neighborhoods and member-at-large are now elected rather than appointed by the Neighborhood Associations. Last year, two SCLC members brought up the illegal fraternity issue at every single meeting, and it was never addressed within the SCLC. 118 119 Objective Four mostly relates to law enforcement between Cal Poly and the City. One item related to neighborhood wellness was assigned to SCLC to “change the student culture related to neighborhood wellness”. As discussed, the most significant issue related to noise issues in the neighborhoods near campus, spreading to other neighborhoods in northern SLO, has not been discussed at the SCLC despite being brought up during every meeting. 120 Objective Five has one item, and I am not convinced that the City has “effectively informed the community on matters of neighborhood wellness” in an annual communications plan, especially related to illegal fraternity operations, which are the largest negative impact on affected neighborhoods. Objective Six is solely about SCLC. The action item of shifting memberships “to directly involve those individuals most directly involved in neighborhood wellness” is not currently happening. Aside from one RQN representative, there are only two 'neighborhood representatives', including the neighborhood-at-large representative, Abe Lincoln. He does not live in an affected neighborhood, does not belong to any group related to neighborhood wellness, and has criticized other representatives and community members for bringing up problems with noise and the illegal fraternity operations in the neighborhoods. Abe is a nice guy, but does not meet the qualifications intended for the seat he is occupying, and the proposed representative by the 121 Neighborhood Groups was rejected, even though they did meet the qualifications of the seat, and the MOU said that the Neighborhood Groups shall appoint that member. The perspective from neighborhoods most directly involved with noise is extremely diluted by the larger membership of Cal Poly and City representatives. The other two action items of an annual report and a town hall are not currently implemented. The SCLC meetings are subject to the Brown Act, but are not recorded and archived for the public, but they should be. Cal Poly Did Not Enforce the Zoning Ordinance When It Knew of the Illegal Fraternities in 2015 The City Council, City Manager, and other leadership knew about the small number of illegal fraternities on Hathway Avenue in 2015 because after the roof collapse on St. Fratty’s Day that year, Cal Poly hired an independent agency to investigate the incident. The report cited fraternities at 348 Hathway and “others” also on Hathway. That report was presented to the City Council and is included in an Agenda in 2015. SLOPD has also been aware of the illegal fraternity houses on Hathway since that time. Christine Wallace has said that the police department was very familiar with the identified Greek houses on Hathway dating back many years. Nonetheless, the City failed to enforce the zoning regulations in 2015 and set the stage for an explosion of more illegal fra ternity houses moving into the neighborhood. The fraternity members probably thought it was legal for them to operate because the City never took any proactive measures to stop their operations. Today, there are over 40 illegal fraternities in Alta Vista, and several others in Monterey Heights. There are also some west of Santa Rosa/Hwy 1. Cal Poly and Its Fraternities are Intentionally Breaking the Law For the past two academic years, Cal Poly administration, Greek Life staff, and IFC leadership have known it is not legal for them to operate in R1/R2 neighborhoods, but they have ignored the City’s laws. They host rush events to recruit new members and regularly hold blow-out fraternity events at their illegal fraternities in residential neighborhoods. We know these events are “fraternity-related” because they follow certain protocols, as required by Cal Poly Greek Life’s Event Registration Policy. Some indicators are fraternity member 'guards' at the front door wearing construction vests or shirts that say “security”, and they check in guests with laptops. I am certain that SLOPD is also familiar with these practices. The guests that go to the parties are 90% female and often are dressed in similar colors or themes, which indicates they are "exchanges" and registered beforehand with Cal Poly. The fraternities also post photos of events on Instagram at the illegal fraternity houses, whose 122 addresses have been previously documented by the City and which have identifiable features on their homes that are seen in the photos. Most of the Main Chapter Houses for Cal Poly’s 19 fraternities are in R1/R2 neighborhoods. Decrease in Noise vs. Increase in Illegal Fraternities The Background in the agenda cites a 45% decrease in noise complaints to SLOPD since 2010. This argument is a red herring to divert attention from the current issue and attempts to distract from the fact that the problem is ongoing and unresolved in the neighborhoods in the northern part of SLO, which is the subject of the Grand Jury’s report. In 2010, there were not 50+ illegal fraternity houses, and the noise complaints to SLOPD did not regularly include parties of 100-300 people in single-family neighborhoods, as they do today! Context matters. Some weekends, nearly 50% of all noise calls citywide are from fraternities, mostly illegally operating in the single-family neighborhoods. Also, many of the long-term residents have moved from these neighborhoods because they could not tolerate the noise from these illegal fraternity operations. It is disingenuous to minimize the immense problem that the residents of these neighborhoods endure every weekend that Cal Poly is in session, which was witnessed firsthand by the members of the Grand Jury. The City should admit there’s a problem, accept the recommendations, and move forward. Let’s work to solve the issue and hold those who are responsible accountable so the people who live in the neighborhoods can have the quiet enjoyment of their homes. DACs & Citations Are Usually Not Accurate When a DAC or noise citation is issued, the number of guests at a party is self-reported to SNAP or SLOPD by the person receiving the DAC or noise citation. For example, Delta Upsilon has an illegal fraternity house at 281 Albert Drive, and they hosted a concert there in May 2025. There were HUNDREDS of people in the backyard. You can see the party in a 1-minute video on their Instagram page here: https://www.instagram.com/p/DJXia7Uh8kO/?img_index=1 or here: https://vimeo.com/1094575248?share=copy#t=0 I SLOPD issued a noise citation to a Delta Upsilon fraternity member at 281 Albert Drive, and the citation said there were 50 people at that concert/party when there were actually at least 300 people. Law enforcement does not enter yards or count people. They ask the person getting the citation how many people are at the event, so the number on the citation is often not accurate, as people will say there is a lower number than the actual number of guests. It also does not reflect the impact of the event on the neighborhood. If the City is using this “data,” just know that it is self-reported by the offender and is not necessarily accurate. One other important point is that parties like the one shown in the video are common in the neighborhood and are rarely cited as unruly gatherings. There are parties that meet the legal standard of unruly gatherings every weekend that Cal Poly is in session, but very few are cited as unruly gatherings. Sometimes, SNAP responds to documented illegal fraternity houses that received letters from Code Enforcement, so a citation can’t even be issued unless SNAP calls SLOPD, but they usually don’t. If SLOPD were to cite these parties as unruly gatherings (which they are, according to the SLOMC), it would likely make an impact to stop them from continuing. Street Closure During St. Fratty’s Day 2022 In the agenda for 7/15/2025, the City claims, “It was not until 2023 that any extended street closure occurred in response to the party…” That is false. The neighborhood streets were barricaded by SLOPD in 2022 when about 2,000 people overtook the streets near our home. On March 12, 2022, St. Fratty’s Day, we were woken by fireworks at 4 a.m. Loud music was coming from MANY houses in the neighborhood because the party was pre-planned, according to many social media posts made on Friday, March 11, 2022, that talked about the St. Fratty’s Day party on Hathway in the early morning hours the next day. By 6 a.m., the intersection at Bond and Hathway was completely overtaken by the illegal street party, and people spanned from Fredericks to Carpenter and up Bond toward Kentucky Street. It was still dark outside, and I took a video of the crowd with my phone. 123 By around 7 a.m., SLOPD officers had blocked off the neighborhood with their vehicles. SLOPD had barricaded Hathway Avenue from Fredericks Street to Carpenter, and Bond Street was barricaded from Hathway Avenue to Kentucky Street. Officers at Fredericks and Hathway told me they had called their supervisor to the scene. I sent a timeline to the City Council of the SLOPD log from that morning to show the number of calls to our neighborhood. Some calls went unanswered for hours because there were not enough officers on duty to respond. Two of the calls I made to SLOPD did not even show up on the police log, including for a party at 348 Hathway, where many people were partying on the roof. It was one of the worst offenders that morning, and there was no response from SLOPD. My neighbor on Hathway also told me he called SLOPD, and his call was not listed. The log is attached to this email. Michelle Shoresman’s response to my email seemed to indicate that my “standards” were not realistic and that SLOPD had adequately handled the matter: “Thanks for the call log. I know you are frustrated and probably don’t think it’s sufficient, but I do happen to note that there are a large number of citations that were made, and even several arrests. I would think this is likely an improvement over past years, even if not still “enough” by your standards.” The truth is that the response in 2022 was not an improvement over past years because our neighborhood was not overtaken by thousands of people for an illegal street party before or after St. Fratty’s Day 2015, when a roof collapsed and ended the party by 6:30 a.m. In any event, the neighborhood streets were barricaded by SLOPD during St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, so hopefully the record is corrected. SLOPD Chief Rick Scott’s Statements to the Council Were Not True Since 2022, the SLOPD Chief Rick Scott has often falsely claimed that this event was “historically” large, as though it had happened in previous years after the roof collapse, but that is not true. We have lived in the neighborhood since St. Fratty’s Day was “founded” in 2009 by a fraternity at 348 Hathway Ave. It was not a street party until 2015, when the roof collapsed at around 6:15 a.m. It seems the Police Chief makes blanket statements, as though there have been illegal street parties during St. Fratty’s Day all along, to deflect the responsibility that, under his leadership, the neighborhood was taken over by thousands of people in 2022, 2023, and 2024. At a Council meeting on 3/15/2022, after St. Fratty’s Day, Chief Scott debriefed the Council: “We have been planning for St. Patrick’s Day for some time now…” and he minimized the magnitude of the event. He said it took “a couple of hours to get the situation under control,” when it actually lasted almost 6 hours, beginning at 4 a.m. He claimed SLOPD was “staffed up” for the event, anticipating crowds similar to numbers before the COVID-19 shutdown. SLOPD did not have additional staff that morning, and Deputy Chief Mickel explained that they were lucky that it happened near shift change, so they could hold over the night officers as the day officers came on duty. (DC Mickel was honest and transparent about the situation, and we appreciate him very much.) St. Fratty’s Day reemerged in 2022 and progressively got worse until it was finally stopped in 2025. The Grand Jury was corre ct in its finding that the event was not handled appropriately in 2022, 2023, and 2024 because SLOPD did not have enough staff to adequately handle the event. DC Mickel admitted that SLOPD was not prepared in 2023 during an RQN meeting. He also referenced the mistakes and failure of SLOPD to fully prepare in previous years (2022-2024) during his presentation to the Council on SLOPD’s plans for 2025. Council Meeting on March 15, 2022, after St. Fratty’s Day 2022 (before St. Patrick’s Day on March 17) During the Council meeting on 3/15/2022, Jan Marx asked that the Council agendize St. Fratty’s Day for discussion. While Erica Stewart supported a future conversation on an agenda, Michelle Shoresman did not support Ms. Marx’s suggestion. Ms. Shoresman said she didn’t want to agendize discussion on the expansion of the Safety Enhancement Zone to include St. Fratty’s Day and said “putting it in the bike rack” would work best for her. 124 It was disappointing that Ms. Shoresman did not give credit to Ms. Marx’s first-hand experience with the event and did not support even a discussion of the matter on a future agenda. Carlyn Christianson was also adamant in not agendizing the item, saying the trend was downwards and was of no concern. Emily Francis and Mike Boswell were not on the City Council then. Warning Before St. Fratty’s 2023 That Was Ignored and SLOPD Was Not Prepared St. Fratty’s Day is typically held on the Saturday before winter finals, and not necessarily the Saturday before St. Patrick’s Day. The event is centered around finals because many students leave town during the week of finals, and the students want to par ty while most are still in town. This should be noted for future years, since Cal Poly is converting to a semester system. In July 2022, I warned the City and SLOPD about St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s Day occurring on Friday/Saturday on the same weekend in 2023 and sent the graphic below to show the perfect-storm scenario that would likely result in an expansion and surge of partiers for St. Fratty’s Day. I thought that the failure to have an aggressive plan would result in legitimizing the event, which would cause the event to continue to gain traction and grow. Looking back, I believe the failure of SLOPD to have an adequate plan in 2023 set in motion the exponential growth of the event the following year. At that point, in 2024, it was too late for a Safety Enhancement Zone to have any meaningful effect. St. Fratty’s Day 2023 During the morning of St. Fratty’s Day 2023, SLOPD was not prepared for the incredibly large crowd of 3,000-4,000 people that showed up. You can watch a video from the event here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYkaOsCwBbA Again, during his debrief to the City Council after the event, Chief Scott did not admit that SLOPD was understaffed and caught off guard by a larger crowd than expected. He told the Council that it “wasn’t unexpected” that 3,000-4,000 people showed up in the neighborhood and that SLOPD was “staffed accordingly to address the concerns.” That was not true. He also said there would be an after-action analysis and would have ongoing dialogue with neighbors who live in the affected neighborhood. That also did not happen. He also said there would be an after-action report brought back to the Council, and Emily Francis asked about the timeline for the after-action report, but Chief Scott was evasive and did not have a timeline. Erica also asked about the after-action report. In fact, there was never an after-action report brought back to the Council for the public to hear. It was obvious to observers of St. Fratty’s Day 2023 that SLOPD was unprepared to handle the event. Videos of the event also show dangerous, illegal behavior that morning. EMS could not navigate the crowd. Dozens of people climbed utility poles. People were openly carrying and drinking alcohol. SLOPD officers stood around the perimeter and observed. Later, DC Fred 125 Mickel admitted on a couple of occasions that SLOPD was understaffed during the St. Fratty’s Day events before 2025 because they did not anticipate the number of people who showed up in the neighborhood. The ”Background” information provided in the Agenda further states: “As the crowds in 2024 grew even larger, the City’s departmental staffing became no longer sufficient to safely address and disperse the crowds gathered in the streets and properties near campus…” This implies that the staffing was sufficient in 2022 and 2023, which it was not. The Grand Jury investigated the City’s response from 2022 to 2024 and found that it was not sufficient, and the finding was correct. When someone (or an agency) is not honest about one thing, it makes people question their honesty about other things and hurts their overall credibility. The City should accept responsibility for the mistakes and celebrate the successes and lessons learned. Failing to take responsibility and making excuses makes the city look dishonest and erodes public confidence. Code Enforcement Failed to Investigate Complaints I sent an email to the Council and Community Development citing complaints I filed before fraternity rush events that were advertised on social media with specific dates, times, and addresses of the upcoming events. The fraternities held those events at the exact date, time, and address listed in my complaint, and none of them were cited by Code Enforcement. Michelle Shoresman said in an email that "the city can’t have eyes and ears everywhere", which seemed to excuse the City’s lack of enforcement. Her response was disheartening. Code Enforcement has continued to dismiss complaints of fraternity events at illegal fraternities in our neighborhood as unfounded, even when they are posted on the fraternity’s social media pages and we observe them happening. I’ve asked SLOPD for help to document the event as a fraternity-related event, and to cite it under the applicable code of illegal land use, but SLOPD leadership said they don’t handle that type of report and referred me to Code Enforcement. It's been a circular exercise that has not brought results, and the illegal fraternities continue to operate. The Grand Jury Findings During the City Council meeting in February 2025, DC Mickel gave the presentation for the plans for St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day 2025, he said SLOPD was reactive during previous years but had learned from their mistakes. Members of the Grand Jury were in the audience. The Jurors also had links to the Police Chief’s previous statements before and after St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, 2023 and 2024; recordings of the SCLC meetings where the Chief also made conflicting statements and Mila’s and Brett’s concerns were continually ignored and even criticized by other members of SCLC; and videos of St. Fratty’s Day in 2022, 2023, and 2024. They also had information about SLOPD policies and procedures, and statements made by two officers related to their response to noisy parties, which likely would not have been known to Christine Wallace. This may be why interviews with two police officers were requested by the Grand Jury, which was blocked by SLOPD, according to the Grand Jury report. The City also claims to have provided documentation, as requested by the Jurors. The findings in the Grand Jury report were based on everything that was provided to them and their observations of the neighborhood during weekends, over at least six months. The City had an ample opportunity to give them all the relevant information throughout the investigation. The City did not “fully cooperate” with the Grand Jury. The report says that the investigation was hampered because the Grand Jury was blocked from interviewing two police officers, despite repeated requests for interviews. The Jurors wanted answers relevant to some specific issues they were investigating that may not have been clear to the City, and it was not appropriate for the City to presume the Grand Jury did not need the testimony. I included the names of two officers in my complaint, and it was related to policy decisions and operations within SLOPD that would likely not be known to Christine Wallace, so that may have been the information they were seeking. The City claimed it would have taken up valuable time from the officers’ schedules, which is ludicrous. SLOPD leadership and officers sit in the audience during Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings, in case there are questions. They certainly had an hour to sit for an interview with the Grand Jury. It is disappointing that SLOPD did not fully cooperate with the Grand Jury, and two officers were prevented from testifying. 126 Beginning on Monday, June 16, 2025, there was a huge surge in activity on my husband's website HowToRuinANeighborhood.com, as multiple people origninating from SLO City (probably staff) went onto the website to search through all the tabs for information, presumably to prepare the response to the Grand Jury by June 20, 2025. I'm not sure what they were looking for, but the website contains video and other documentation related to the issues that were investigated by the Grand Jury. I am not sure if the Grand Jury even looked at the website. Finally, it is obvious that I have been invested in solving this problem for several years and have put my heart and soul into finding solutions. The reason I have made these efforts is because I DEEPLY love my home and property, with our beautiful view of Cerro San Luis from our kitchen and back deck, gardens we’ve cultivated over many years, and an ADU that was to provide income so we could retire. We did not want to be displaced and thought my efforts would result in enforcement and allow my husband and me to stay in our home. I felt as though I was fighting for our lives. When the City did not respond to help solve the issue, I went to the news, and they covered the story. Even the Editorial Board subsequently wrote an Editorial, urging the City to take action, but it has not. The story was picked up by the Daily Mail, and many people contacted us, including legitimate production companies who wanted to film a documentary about the issue. We did not want that sort of publicity and hoped the problem would be solved by the City. We also wrote to the Grand Jury, and they investigated the matter. The Grand Jury report gave us hope, but that was lost when we read the City's 27-page response. We gave up and decided to use our entire life savings for a down payment on a house in a quiet neighborhood, and needed co-signers to qualify for the payments. We do not have any retirement and will now try to get by month-to-month, with payments that exceed 70% of our income. Meanwhile, we, and others in the affected neighborhoods, have been damaged by the inaction of the City for several years. The City should own up to that. Please appoint Jan Marx and Emily Francis (or Mike Boswell) to the Ad Hoc Committee. The public deserves to provide input on this important issue. Thank you, Kathie Walker To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 12-01-2015 Item 14 - Action for Civility Report Recommendations.pdf Call time Arrived Cleared Response time Address Type Outcome4:21 4:39 4:42 18 min 208 Hathway Loud party/Fireworks No violation4:38 4:42 4:52 4 min 260 Santa Lucia*Fireworks No report 4:51 4:57 5:15 6 min 146 Stenner*Loud yelling/music Citation 5:09 5:22 5:22 13 min 561 Luneta*Loud music Unable to Locate 5:11 5:18 5:33 7 min 322 Hathway Music & Fireworks DAC 5:50 5:54 6:03 4 min Hathway Alley Gathering per YikYak Unable to Locate 6:11 6:12 6:23 1 min 281 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 6:12 n/a 6:25 canceled 1784 McCollum*Noisy crowd in street Canceled 6:30 6:31 6:35 1 min 1218 Bond Noise/Party Citation 6:30 10:02 3 hr 32 min 451 Chorro*Noise/Party No violation 6:39 6:39 6:47 0 min**274 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 6:52 0 min**281 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 6:56 7:07 7:47 11 min 306 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 7:08 7:08 7:29 0 min**Bond & Hathway Intoxicated Person Arrest PC647(F) 7:13 7:13 7:29 0 min**1213 Bond Intoxicated Person Arrest PC647(F) 7:20 9:15 9:18 1 hr 55 min 1441 Slack*Noisy people No report 7:26 7:26 7:33 0 min**208 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 7:47 7:48 7:53 1 min 281 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 7:50 7:50 7:57 0 min**Hathway & Fredericks UIP Citation 8:00 8:00 8:16 0 min**Hathway & Carpenter Intoxicated Person Arrest PC647(F) 8:01 9:49 9:51 1 hr 48 min 175 Hathway Large Party 100+ UIP No violation 8:07 9:22 9:22 1 hr 15 min Loomis & Graves*Noisy people Unable to Locate 8:15 8:15 8:38 0 min**291 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 8:21 8:21 8:42 0 min**200 Block Hathway Assault/Oth Weapon Report to follow 8:25 8:25 8:35 0 min**291 Hathway Noise/Party Citation 8:38 10:09 10:10 1 hr 31 min 334 Foothill*Noisy people No violation 7:00 AM -Multiple police vehicles posted at intersections in neighborhood (3 hours after initial disturbances) Officers standing at Fredericks/Hathway say they've called their supervisor to respond to the scene Timeline of events on 3/12/2022 "St. Fratty's Day" College student-aged people have begun to gather in street at Hathway/Bond and loud parties are throughout neighborhood Large crowds have overtaken Hathway Ave from Carpenter to Fredericks overflowing onto Bond SLOPD POLICE LOG - 3/12/2022 5:15 AM - Police increasing presence in lower Alta Vista neighborhood (1 hour after initial disturbances) KAPPA SIGMA KAPPA SIGMA ALPHA SIGMA PHI KAPPA SIGMA KAPPA SIGMA 9:02 9:03 9:07 1 min 208 Hathway Noise/Party Citation9:03 9:07 9:17 4 min 133 Orange Noise/Party Citation9:19 9:19 9:29 0 min**191 Orange Noise/Party Citation9:26 9:28 9:41 2 min 1220 Fredericks Noise/Party-ppl on roof Citation10:02 10:13 10:26 11 min 1050 Foothill - The SLO Apts*Noise/Party Citation10:26 12:03 12:07 1 hr 36 min 200 Block Kentucky Large Party-ppl on roof Unable to Locate11:01 11:01 11:35 0 min**Longview DUI Arrest 11:11 11:42 11:43 31 min Kentucky Alley Males kicking…No report12:09 12:18 12:22 9 min 1700 Kentucky Large Party-ppl on roof No violation12:13 13:19 13:27 1 hr 6 min 1050 Foothill - The SLO Apts*Noise/Party No violation***St. Fratty's Day is meant to start at 4am and be over by mid-mornnig (i.e. 4am - 10am)By 10:00 AM - 6 hours after the initial disturbances - the lower Alta Vista neighborhood has mostly quieted down*** Police are back in their vehicles and "mopping up" after crowd dispersed*Outside of the lower-Alta Vista neighborhood which is the area targeted for St. Fratty's Day**zero (0) min response could be officer observation and not a "call" for service 127 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Saturday, July 12, 2025 6:36 PM To:Jeff Eidelman Subject:RE: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury That’s a HARD “no thank you” for me! It is unfortunate that we, as a council, don’t have more authority over state or other “higher” entities sometimes. But, as they say, it is what it is. Have a good rest of your weekend. From: Jeff Eidelman < Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2025 5:36 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Thanks Michelle You always respond to my emails and I greatly appreciate this. I recognize the difficulty of your job and the decisions you have to make. When I was in practice, we had all these ‘turf wars’ about who could do what. It got down right nasty at times and usually it came down to the almighty dollar and not the merits of either side. Plus being on the city council is one thing, how would you like to be on the Supreme Court? No thank you for me! Have a nice weekend! Jeff Sent from my iPhone On Jul 12, 2025, at 3:46 PM, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Jeff, Thanks for the email. I have had many conversations and exchanged many emails with Kathie over the past few years since I have been on council, and I have thanked her for the insight that she provided, as well as working to improve circumstances as we are able. It is, as always an ongoing process, and we will keep working on it. She appears to have bcc-ed you on her email to us, so I will also give you the same suggestion that I have given her several times before: if you would like your concerns/thoughts included in the city’s official record, it is always best to use the emailcouncil@slocity.org email address. That way the clerk receives the emails also, and can include them with the rest of the agenda correspondence. No need to worry about it this time…I have copied them here. But, in the future, it’s a good idea. Again, thank you for your note. I really appreciate you support for our goals of making our neighborhoods more welcoming and livable for everyone. It is not an easy one, as we have limited “levers” we can use, but we continue to work on it, and explore new ones. Thanks again, Michelle 128 From: Jeff Eidelman < Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 3:59 PM To: Kathie Walker < Cc: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Dear City Council First a prayer for Kathie who just lost her mom! Secondly, I cannot believe the work and dedication, the literal slave labor, the intensity, the use of multiple resources that Kathie has put into doing this! She should be commended, even though she has pointed out some difficult points about the City Council and the Police! I know what Kathie has lived through, because I live in the heart of this mess too. Her persistence and thoroughness in gathering these details is beyond my understanding and ability . There were nights before I retired, that I got woken up by noise between midnight and 3:00 a.m. when I had to get up at 6:00 to go do surgery on 1 or 2 people at French hospital! Believe me, it happened more than once. It is a very unenviable position to be in. Her husband Steve has the same problem as I did. I’m retired now and that specifically doesn’t happen to me, but I still get woken up. There were so many unbelievably loud parties coming from the 1300 and 1400 block of E. Foothill all Saturday afternoons for months. Nighttime is also no exception! Yes, I know the city didn’t renew 2 permits for 2 of these frat houses, but the problem is real, it still exists. Some of you have privately told me you are not happy about the situation and I appreciate that. However, if you can’t fix it, who can? Finally, after 46 years of living here, 24 at my current address, when are you going to take this seriously and do something about it? Maybe it won’t be good for your political careers. We are some of the last few standing families in this neighborhood. I don’t want to move!! I love my house and my backyard. My children and grandchildren who also live in SLO love it too. Once again, I beg you for the umpteenth time, DO SOMETHING! Get the city attorney, pass some regulations, pressure Cal Poly, threaten legal action if necessary. It’s no longer a time to ‘BE NICE’! The time is now, the momentum is here. Please act! I am 71 years old now. I was 26 when I came here. I want to see this happen. PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING!!! This is your job as Mayor and as Coucilmembers. What is really important about our lives here in San Luis? There are many things, I agree, but this is on the top of my list. Please put it on yours too! Respectfully, Jeff Eidelman On Jul 11, 2025, at 3:17 PM, kathie walker < wrote: Dear City Councilmembers, My mom died two weeks ago, on June 28, 2025, after a devastating battle with brain cancer. Sadly, she was drawn into far-right politics and firmly believed Ivermectin would cure her disease. Despite efforts from family members, she rejected all other treatments. Misinformation stole her chance at life. 129 I am shaken by her loss and furious that she was misled by voices who value ideology over truth. We are living through terrifying times, when politicians claim “up is down” and too many people believe them, even when reality says otherwise. Most days, I can’t even turn on the television. The news feels surreal. I fear for our collective future. In the midst of all this uncertainty, I long for something stable and familiar. I wish I could rely on the comfort of living peacefully in San Luis Obispo, where my mom, her mom, and my own children and grandchildren have lived. I wish I could believe in a hometown where City leadership and elected officials uphold truth, transparency, and integrity. But I don’t. For nearly two decades, my family has lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood, which is now overrun by illegal fraternity houses that have shattered our peace and impacted our health. This is not about noisy student parties. These are full-scale fraternity operations - dozens of them - with waves of screaming partiers parading from house to house on weekends. What we witness from our front yard would shock most people. No one in a residential neighborhood should have to live through the chaos we’ve endured. This has taken a toll on our health. I now receive medical treatment for anxiety, and my dentist recently said I’ve started grinding my teeth at night, which has damaged them. My husband, Steve, cannot take medications because FAA regulations govern his job, but his health has also been affected. He’s had to miss work because the lack of sleep from noisy fraternity parties has left him too exhausted to safely perform his duties. That’s how serious this is. It has wrecked our lives. Since Fall 2021, I’ve sent you videos documenting violations and raging parties at known illegal fraternity houses in R1 and R2 zones. SLOPD cleared most as “negative violation” or “unable to locate.” I’ve invited you, the Council, to come see for yourselves. No one has taken me up on my invitation. But others did. A reporter from The Tribune came. The Tribune Editorial Board urged the City to act quickly and deemed the neighborhood “unlivable.” The Grand Jury also visited during a weekend and saw the mayhem firsthand. Their report concluded that the neighborhood is “almost unlivable for most residents.” The City’s response? “There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are 'almost unlivable'…” Up is down. When it comes to noise, I’ve sent you video after video of insanely loud fraternity parties. There are 40 illegal fraternity houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood, where there were only a few ten years ago. There are almost a dozen in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, where there were zero ten years ago. I’ve highlighted the addresses of noise complaints tied to these properties from SLOPD’s weekend 130 logs. The Grand Jury’s finding of three citations per weekend in this small neighborhood was conservative. The City’s response? “There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years…” Up is down. When the Grand Jury released its report, I felt a flicker of hope that finally, something might change. Instead, the City responded with a 27-page document full of denials, corrections, and deflections. Reading it made me physically ill. After a second and third reading, I felt embarrassed on the City’s behalf. Many of the corrections were trivial and did not address the core issue. The City doubled down and refused to accept responsibility. Up is down. Then, as the reality of the City’s indifference set in, my mother died. She was 21 years older than I am. It hit me: if my life follows the same path, I may only have 21 autumns left. Twenty-one Christmases. Twenty-one summers. Such limited chances to be present with my family, and I cannot afford to spend them in a place where Thursday through Sunday, peace is shattered and rest is impossible. How can I live in a neighborhood where I cannot actually live? So, with the help of our daughter and son-in-law, we made a heartbreaking, financially devastating decision. We bought a home in a quieter neighborhood near Sinsheimer Park. It will cost us thousands of dollars more per month and wipe out our savings. But we had no choice. We needed peace to survive. The City should have enforced its zoning laws, but it has not. Not a single fraternity has been shut down. It should have held Cal Poly’s fraternities accountable, but it hasn’t even obtained the addresses of illegal houses from Greek Life. You should have responded to residents pleading for help, but you did not. We were ignored, again and again, for years. Instead of taking responsibility, the City denied, deflected, and defended. It dismissed our lived experience. It rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. It turned its back on the truth. It is a disgrace. I can only hope that, moving forward, each of you, as elected representatives, will reflect on the choices that have led us here and commit to making better, braver decisions rooted in truth, transparency, and a genuine concern for the well-being of all residents. Do the right thing and hold Cal Poly accountable. The people of San Luis Obispo deserve nothing less. 131 Sincerely, Kathie Walker Alta Vista Resident, soon to be displaced from the home we love 132 From:kathie walker < Sent:Saturday, July 12, 2025 6:24 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Michelle, I didn't necessarily want my comments recognized in the record so intentionally did not sent it to EmailCouncil@slocity.org. I just wanted each of you, as my elected representatives, to understand the gravity of the situation. On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 3:36 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, I want to make sure your concerns are heard, so I am copying the Clerk. As I think you know, this is the only way to get your comments recognized in the record. Emailing emailcouncil@slocity.org, as I have mentioned before, is the best way to do that. Again, I am very sorry for your loss and for all the medical and mental health issues you and your family have experienced. Michelle From: kathie walker < Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 3:17 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Dear City Councilmembers, My mom died two weeks ago, on June 28, 2025, after a devastating battle with brain cancer. Sadly, she was drawn into far-right politics and firmly believed Ivermectin would cure her disease. Despite efforts from family members, she rejected all other treatments. Misinformation stole her chance at life. I am shaken by her loss and furious that she was misled by voices who value ideology over truth. We are living through terrifying times, when politicians claim “up is down” and too many people believe them, even when reality says otherwise. Most days, I can’t even turn on the television. The news feels surreal. I fear for our collective future. 133 In the midst of all this uncertainty, I long for something stable and familiar. I wish I could rely on the comfort of living peacefully in San Luis Obispo, where my mom, her mom, and my own children and grandchildren have lived. I wish I could believe in a hometown where City leadership and elected officials uphold truth, transparency, and integrity. But I don’t. For nearly two decades, my family has lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood, which is now overrun by illegal fraternity houses that have shattered our peace and impacted our health. This is not about noisy student parties. These are full-scale fraternity operations - dozens of them - with waves of screaming partiers parading from house to house on weekends. What we witness from our front yard would shock most people. No one in a residential neighborhood should have to live through the chaos we’ve endured. This has taken a toll on our health. I now receive medical treatment for anxiety, and my dentist recently said I’ve started grinding my teeth at night, which has damaged them. My husband, Steve, cannot take medications because FAA regulations govern his job, but his health has also been affected. He’s had to miss work because the lack of sleep from noisy fraternity parties has left him too exhausted to safely perform his duties. That’s how serious this is. It has wrecked our lives. Since Fall 2021, I’ve sent you videos documenting violations and raging parties at known illegal fraternity houses in R1 and R2 zones. SLOPD cleared most as “negative violation” or “unable to locate.” I’ve invited you, the Council, to come see for yourselves. No one has taken me up on my invitation. But others did. A reporter from The Tribune came. The Tribune Editorial Board urged the City to act quickly and deemed the neighborhood “unlivable.” The Grand Jury also visited during a weekend and saw the mayhem firsthand. Their report concluded that the neighborhood is “almost unlivable for most residents.” The City’s response? “There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are 'almost unlivable'…” Up is down. When it comes to noise, I’ve sent you video after video of insanely loud fraternity parties. There are 40 illegal fraternity houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood, where there were only a few ten years ago. There are almost a dozen in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, where there were zero ten years ago. I’ve highlighted the addresses of noise complaints tied to these properties from SLOPD’s weekend logs. The Grand Jury’s finding of three citations per weekend in this small neighborhood was conservative. The City’s response? “There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years…” Up is down. When the Grand Jury released its report, I felt a flicker of hope that finally, something might change. Instead, the City responded with a 27-page document full of denials, corrections, and deflections. Reading it made me physically ill. After a second and third reading, I felt embarrassed on the City’s behalf. Many of the corrections were trivial and did not address the core issue. The City doubled down and refused to accept responsibility. Up is down. 134 Then, as the reality of the City’s indifference set in, my mother died. She was 21 years older than I am. It hit me: if my life follows the same path, I may only have 21 autumns left. Twenty-one Christmases. Twenty-one summers. Such limited chances to be present with my family, and I cannot afford to spend them in a place where Thursday through Sunday, peace is shattered and rest is impossible. How can I live in a neighborhood where I cannot actually live? So, with the help of our daughter and son-in-law, we made a heartbreaking, financially devastating decision. We bought a home in a quieter neighborhood near Sinsheimer Park. It will cost us thousands of dollars more per month and wipe out our savings. But we had no choice. We needed peace to survive. The City should have enforced its zoning laws, but it has not. Not a single fraternity has been shut down. It should have held Cal Poly’s fraternities accountable, but it hasn’t even obtained the addresses of illegal houses from Greek Life. You should have responded to residents pleading for help, but you did not. We were ignored, again and again, for years. Instead of taking responsibility, the City denied, deflected, and defended. It dismissed our lived experience. It rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. It turned its back on the truth. It is a disgrace. I can only hope that, moving forward, each of you, as elected representatives, will reflect on the choices that have led us here and commit to making better, braver decisions rooted in truth, transparency, and a genuine concern for the well-being of all residents. Do the right thing and hold Cal Poly accountable. The people of San Luis Obispo deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Alta Vista Resident, soon to be displaced from the home we love 135 From:Jeff Eidelman < Sent:Saturday, July 12, 2025 5:36 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Thanks Michelle You always respond to my emails and I greatly appreciate this. I recognize the difficulty of your job and the decisions you have to make. When I was in practice, we had all these ‘turf wars’ about who could do what. It got down right nasty at times and usually it came down to the almighty dollar and not the merits of either side. Plus being on the city council is one thing, how would you like to be on the Supreme Court? No thank you for me! Have a nice weekend! Jeff Sent from my iPhone On Jul 12, 2025, at 3:46 PM, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Jeff, Thanks for the email. I have had many conversations and exchanged many emails with Kathie over the past few years since I have been on council, and I have thanked her for the insight that she provided, as well as working to improve circumstances as we are able. It is, as always an ongoing process, and we will keep working on it. She appears to have bcc-ed you on her email to us, so I will also give you the same suggestion that I have given her several times before: if you would like your concerns/thoughts included in the city’s official record, it is always best to use the emailcouncil@slocity.org email address. That way the clerk receives the emails also, and can include them with the rest of the agenda correspondence. No need to worry about it this time…I have copied them here. But, in the future, it’s a good idea. Again, thank you for your note. I really appreciate you support for our goals of making our neighborhoods more welcoming and livable for everyone. It is not an easy one, as we have limited “levers” we can use, but we continue to work on it, and explore new ones. Thanks again, Michelle From: Jeff Eidelman < Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 3:59 PM To: Kathie Walker < Cc: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Dear City Council First a prayer for Kathie who just lost her mom! Secondly, I cannot believe the work and dedication, the literal slave labor, the intensity, the use of multiple resources that Kathie has put into doing this! 136 She should be commended, even though she has pointed out some difficult points about the City Council and the Police! I know what Kathie has lived through, because I live in the heart of this mess too. Her persistence and thoroughness in gathering these details is beyond my understanding and ability . There were nights before I retired, that I got woken up by noise between midnight and 3:00 a.m. when I had to get up at 6:00 to go do surgery on 1 or 2 people at French hospital! Believe me, it happened more than once. It is a very unenviable position to be in. Her husband Steve has the same problem as I did. I’m retired now and that specifically doesn’t happen to me, but I still get woken up. There were so many unbelievably loud parties coming from the 1300 and 1400 block of E. Foothill all Saturday afternoons for months. Nighttime is also no exception! Yes, I know the city didn’t renew 2 permits for 2 of these frat houses, but the problem is real, it still exists. Some of you have privately told me you are not happy about the situation and I appreciate that. However, if you can’t fix it, who can? Finally, after 46 years of living here, 24 at my current address, when are you going to take this seriously and do something about it? Maybe it won’t be good for your political careers. We are some of the last few standing families in this neighborhood. I don’t want to move!! I love my house and my backyard. My children and grandchildren who also live in SLO love it too. Once again, I beg you for the umpteenth time, DO SOMETHING! Get the city attorney, pass some regulations, pressure Cal Poly, threaten legal action if necessary. It’s no longer a time to ‘BE NICE’! The time is now, the momentum is here. Please act! I am 71 years old now. I was 26 when I came here. I want to see this happen. PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING!!! This is your job as Mayor and as Coucilmembers. What is really important about our lives here in San Luis? There are many things, I agree, but this is on the top of my list. Please put it on yours too! Respectfully, Jeff Eidelman On Jul 11, 2025, at 3:17 PM, kathie walker < wrote: Dear City Councilmembers, My mom died two weeks ago, on June 28, 2025, after a devastating battle with brain cancer. Sadly, she was drawn into far-right politics and firmly believed Ivermectin would cure her disease. Despite efforts from family members, she rejected all other treatments. Misinformation stole her chance at life. I am shaken by her loss and furious that she was misled by voices who value ideology over truth. We are living through terrifying times, when politicians claim “up is down” and too many people believe them, even when reality says otherwise. Most days, I can’t even turn on the television. The news feels surreal. I fear for our collective future. In the midst of all this uncertainty, I long for something stable and familiar. I wish I could rely on the comfort of living peacefully in San Luis Obispo, where my mom, her mom, and my own children and grandchildren have lived. I wish I could believe 137 in a hometown where City leadership and elected officials uphold truth, transparency, and integrity. But I don’t. For nearly two decades, my family has lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood, which is now overrun by illegal fraternity houses that have shattered our peace and impacted our health. This is not about noisy student parties. These are full-scale fraternity operations - dozens of them - with waves of screaming partiers parading from house to house on weekends. What we witness from our front yard would shock most people. No one in a residential neighborhood should have to live through the chaos we’ve endured. This has taken a toll on our health. I now receive medical treatment for anxiety, and my dentist recently said I’ve started grinding my teeth at night, which has damaged them. My husband, Steve, cannot take medications because FAA regulations govern his job, but his health has also been affected. He’s had to miss work because the lack of sleep from noisy fraternity parties has left him too exhausted to safely perform his duties. That’s how serious this is. It has wrecked our lives. Since Fall 2021, I’ve sent you videos documenting violations and raging parties at known illegal fraternity houses in R1 and R2 zones. SLOPD cleared most as “negative violation” or “unable to locate.” I’ve invited you, the Council, to come see for yourselves. No one has taken me up on my invitation. But others did. A reporter from The Tribune came. The Tribune Editorial Board urged the City to act quickly and deemed the neighborhood “unlivable.” The Grand Jury also visited during a weekend and saw the mayhem firsthand. Their report concluded that the neighborhood is “almost unlivable for most residents.” The City’s response? “There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are 'almost unlivable'…” Up is down. When it comes to noise, I’ve sent you video after video of insanely loud fraternity parties. There are 40 illegal fraternity houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood, where there were only a few ten years ago. There are almost a dozen in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, where there were zero ten years ago. I’ve highlighted the addresses of noise complaints tied to these properties from SLOPD’s weekend logs. The Grand Jury’s finding of three citations per weekend in this small neighborhood was conservative. The City’s response? “There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years…” Up is down. 138 When the Grand Jury released its report, I felt a flicker of hope that finally, something might change. Instead, the City responded with a 27-page document full of denials, corrections, and deflections. Reading it made me physically ill. After a second and third reading, I felt embarrassed on the City’s behalf. Many of the corrections were trivial and did not address the core issue. The City doubled down and refused to accept responsibility. Up is down. Then, as the reality of the City’s indifference set in, my mother died. She was 21 years older than I am. It hit me: if my life follows the same path, I may only have 21 autumns left. Twenty-one Christmases. Twenty-one summers. Such limited chances to be present with my family, and I cannot afford to spend them in a place where Thursday through Sunday, peace is shattered and rest is impossible. How can I live in a neighborhood where I cannot actually live? So, with the help of our daughter and son-in-law, we made a heartbreaking, financially devastating decision. We bought a home in a quieter neighborhood near Sinsheimer Park. It will cost us thousands of dollars more per month and wipe out our savings. But we had no choice. We needed peace to survive. The City should have enforced its zoning laws, but it has not. Not a single fraternity has been shut down. It should have held Cal Poly’s fraternities accountable, but it hasn’t even obtained the addresses of illegal houses from Greek Life. You should have responded to residents pleading for help, but you did not. We were ignored, again and again, for years. Instead of taking responsibility, the City denied, deflected, and defended. It dismissed our lived experience. It rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. It turned its back on the truth. It is a disgrace. I can only hope that, moving forward, each of you, as elected representatives, will reflect on the choices that have led us here and commit to making better, braver decisions rooted in truth, transparency, and a genuine concern for the well-being of all residents. Do the right thing and hold Cal Poly accountable. The people of San Luis Obispo deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Alta Vista Resident, soon to be displaced from the home we love 139 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Saturday, July 12, 2025 3:46 PM To:Jeff Eidelman Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Hi Jeff, Thanks for the email. I have had many conversations and exchanged many emails with Kathie over the past few years since I have been on council, and I have thanked her for the insight that she provided, as well as working to improve circumstances as we are able. It is, as always an ongoing process, and we will keep working on it. She appears to have bcc-ed you on her email to us, so I will also give you the same suggestion that I have given her several times before: if you would like your concerns/thoughts included in the city’s official record, it is always best to use the emailcouncil@slocity.org email address. That way the clerk receives the emails also, and can include them with the rest of the agenda correspondence. No need to worry about it this time…I have copied them here. But, in the future, it’s a good idea. Again, thank you for your note. I really appreciate you support for our goals of making our neighborhoods more welcoming and livable for everyone. It is not an easy one, as we have limited “levers” we can use, but we continue to work on it, and explore new ones. Thanks again, Michelle From: Jeff Eidelman < Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 3:59 PM To: Kathie Walker < Cc: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Dear City Council First a prayer for Kathie who just lost her mom! Secondly, I cannot believe the work and dedication, the literal slave labor, the intensity, the use of multiple resources that Kathie has put into doing this! She should be commended, even though she has pointed out some difficult points about the City Council and the Police! I know what Kathie has lived through, because I live in the heart of this mess too. Her persistence and thoroughness in gathering these details is beyond my understanding and ability . There were nights before I retired, that I got woken up by noise between midnight and 3:00 a.m. when I had to get up at 6:00 to go do surgery on 1 or 2 people at French hospital! Believe me, it happened more than once. It is a very unenviable position to be in. Her husband Steve has the same problem as I did. I’m retired now and that specifically doesn’t happen to me, but I still get woken up. There were so many unbelievably loud parties coming from the 1300 and 1400 block of E. Foothill all Saturday afternoons for months. Nighttime is also no exception! Yes, I know the city didn’t renew 2 permits for 2 of these frat houses, but the problem is real, it still exists. Some of you have privately told me you are not happy about the situation and I appreciate that. However, if you can’t fix it, who can? Finally, after 46 years of living here, 24 at my current 140 address, when are you going to take this seriously and do something about it? Maybe it won’t be good for your political careers. We are some of the last few standing families in this neighborhood. I don’t want to move!! I love my house and my backyard. My children and grandchildren who also live in SLO love it too. Once again, I beg you for the umpteenth time, DO SOMETHING! Get the city attorney, pass some regulations, pressure Cal Poly, threaten legal action if necessary. It’s no longer a time to ‘BE NICE’! The time is now, the momentum is here. Please act! I am 71 years old now. I was 26 when I came here. I want to see this happen. PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING!!! This is your job as Mayor and as Coucilmembers. What is really important about our lives here in San Luis? There are many things, I agree, but this is on the top of my list. Please put it on yours too! Respectfully, Jeff Eidelman On Jul 11, 2025, at 3:17 PM, kathie walker < wrote: Dear City Councilmembers, My mom died two weeks ago, on June 28, 2025, after a devastating battle with brain cancer. Sadly, she was drawn into far-right politics and firmly believed Ivermectin would cure her disease. Despite efforts from family members, she rejected all other treatments. Misinformation stole her chance at life. I am shaken by her loss and furious that she was misled by voices who value ideology over truth. We are living through terrifying times, when politicians claim “up is down” and too many people believe them, even when reality says otherwise. Most days, I can’t even turn on the television. The news feels surreal. I fear for our collective future. In the midst of all this uncertainty, I long for something stable and familiar. I wish I could rely on the comfort of living peacefully in San Luis Obispo, where my mom, her mom, and my own children and grandchildren have lived. I wish I could believe in a hometown where City leadership and elected officials uphold truth, transparency, and integrity. But I don’t. For nearly two decades, my family has lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood, which is now overrun by illegal fraternity houses that have shattered our peace and impacted our health. This is not about noisy student parties. These are full-scale fraternity operations - dozens of them - with waves of screaming partiers parading from house to house on weekends. What we witness from our front yard would shock most people. No one in a residential neighborhood should have to live through the chaos we’ve endured. This has taken a toll on our health. I now receive medical treatment for anxiety, and my dentist recently said I’ve started grinding my teeth at night, which has damaged them. My husband, Steve, cannot take medications because FAA regulations govern his job, but his health has also been affected. He’s had to miss work because the lack of sleep from noisy fraternity parties has left him too exhausted to safely perform his duties. That’s how serious this is. It has wrecked our lives. Since Fall 2021, I’ve sent you videos documenting violations and raging parties at known illegal fraternity houses in R1 and R2 zones. SLOPD cleared most as “negative violation” or “unable to locate.” I’ve invited you, the Council, to come see for yourselves. No one has taken me up on my invitation. 141 But others did. A reporter from The Tribune came. The Tribune Editorial Board urged the City to act quickly and deemed the neighborhood “unlivable.” The Grand Jury also visited during a weekend and saw the mayhem firsthand. Their report concluded that the neighborhood is “almost unlivable for most residents.” The City’s response? “There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are 'almost unlivable'…” Up is down. When it comes to noise, I’ve sent you video after video of insanely loud fraternity parties. There are 40 illegal fraternity houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood, where there were only a few ten years ago. There are almost a dozen in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, where there were zero ten years ago. I’ve highlighted the addresses of noise complaints tied to these properties from SLOPD’s weekend logs. The Grand Jury’s finding of three citations per weekend in this small neighborhood was conservative. The City’s response? “There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years…” Up is down. When the Grand Jury released its report, I felt a flicker of hope that finally, something might change. Instead, the City responded with a 27-page document full of denials, corrections, and deflections. Reading it made me physically ill. After a second and third reading, I felt embarrassed on the City’s behalf. Many of the corrections were trivial and did not address the core issue. The City doubled down and refused to accept responsibility. Up is down. Then, as the reality of the City’s indifference set in, my mother died. She was 21 years older than I am. It hit me: if my life follows the same path, I may only have 21 autumns left. Twenty-one Christmases. Twenty-one summers. Such limited chances to be present with my family, and I cannot afford to spend them in a place where Thursday through Sunday, peace is shattered and rest is impossible. How can I live in a neighborhood where I cannot actually live? So, with the help of our daughter and son-in-law, we made a heartbreaking, financially devastating decision. We bought a home in a quieter neighborhood near Sinsheimer Park. It will cost us thousands of dollars more per month and wipe out our savings. But we had no choice. We needed peace to survive. The City should have enforced its zoning laws, but it has not. Not a single fraternity has been shut down. It should have held Cal Poly’s fraternities accountable, but it hasn’t even obtained the addresses of illegal houses from Greek Life. You should have responded to residents pleading for help, but you did not. We were ignored, again and again, for years. 142 Instead of taking responsibility, the City denied, deflected, and defended. It dismissed our lived experience. It rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. It turned its back on the truth. It is a disgrace. I can only hope that, moving forward, each of you, as elected representatives, will reflect on the choices that have led us here and commit to making better, braver decisions rooted in truth, transparency, and a genuine concern for the well-being of all residents. Do the right thing and hold Cal Poly accountable. The people of San Luis Obispo deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Alta Vista Resident, soon to be displaced from the home we love 143 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Saturday, July 12, 2025 3:37 PM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Hi Kathie, I want to make sure your concerns are heard, so I am copying the Clerk. As I think you know, this is the only way to get your comments recognized in the record. Emailing emailcouncil@slocity.org, as I have mentioned before, is the best way to do that. Again, I am very sorry for your loss and for all the medical and mental health issues you and your family have experienced. Michelle From: kathie walker < Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 3:17 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Dear City Councilmembers, My mom died two weeks ago, on June 28, 2025, after a devastating battle with brain cancer. Sadly, she was drawn into far-right politics and firmly believed Ivermectin would cure her disease. Despite efforts from family members, she rejected all other treatments. Misinformation stole her chance at life. I am shaken by her loss and furious that she was misled by voices who value ideology over truth. We are living through terrifying times, when politicians claim “up is down” and too many people believe them, even when reality says otherwise. Most days, I can’t even turn on the television. The news feels surreal. I fear for our collective future. In the midst of all this uncertainty, I long for something stable and familiar. I wish I could rely on the comfort of living peacefully in San Luis Obispo, where my mom, her mom, and my own children and grandchildren have lived. I wish I could believe in a hometown where City leadership and elected officials uphold truth, transparency, and integrity. But I don’t. For nearly two decades, my family has lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood, which is now overrun by illegal fraternity houses that have shattered our peace and impacted our health. This is not about noisy student parties. These are full-scale fraternity operations - dozens of them - with waves of screaming partiers parading from house to house on weekends. What we witness from our front yard would shock most people. No one in a residential neighborhood should have to live through the chaos we’ve endured. This has taken a toll on our health. I now receive medical treatment for anxiety, and my dentist recently said I’ve started grinding my teeth at night, which has damaged them. My husband, Steve, cannot take medications because FAA regulations govern his job, but his health has also been affected. He’s had to miss work because 144 the lack of sleep from noisy fraternity parties has left him too exhausted to safely perform his duties. That’s how serious this is. It has wrecked our lives. Since Fall 2021, I’ve sent you videos documenting violations and raging parties at known illegal fraternity houses in R1 and R2 zones. SLOPD cleared most as “negative violation” or “unable to locate.” I’ve invited you, the Council, to come see for yourselves. No one has taken me up on my invitation. But others did. A reporter from The Tribune came. The Tribune Editorial Board urged the City to act quickly and deemed the neighborhood “unlivable.” The Grand Jury also visited during a weekend and saw the mayhem firsthand. Their report concluded that the neighborhood is “almost unlivable for most residents.” The City’s response? “There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are 'almost unlivable'…” Up is down. When it comes to noise, I’ve sent you video after video of insanely loud fraternity parties. There are 40 illegal fraternity houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood, where there were only a few ten years ago. There are almost a dozen in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, where there were zero ten years ago. I’ve highlighted the addresses of noise complaints tied to these properties from SLOPD’s weekend logs. The Grand Jury’s finding of three citations per weekend in this small neighborhood was conservative. The City’s response? “There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years…” Up is down. When the Grand Jury released its report, I felt a flicker of hope that finally, something might change. Instead, the City responded with a 27-page document full of denials, corrections, and deflections. Reading it made me physically ill. After a second and third reading, I felt embarrassed on the City’s behalf. Many of the corrections were trivial and did not address the core issue. The City doubled down and refused to accept responsibility. Up is down. Then, as the reality of the City’s indifference set in, my mother died. She was 21 years older than I am. It hit me: if my life follows the same path, I may only have 21 autumns left. Twenty-one Christmases. Twenty-one summers. Such limited chances to be present with my family, and I cannot afford to spend them in a place where Thursday through Sunday, peace is shattered and rest is impossible. How can I live in a neighborhood where I cannot actually live? So, with the help of our daughter and son-in-law, we made a heartbreaking, financially devastating decision. We bought a home in a quieter neighborhood near Sinsheimer Park. It will cost us thousands of dollars more per month and wipe out our savings. But we had no choice. We needed peace to survive. The City should have enforced its zoning laws, but it has not. Not a single fraternity has been shut down. It should have held Cal Poly’s fraternities accountable, but it hasn’t even obtained the addresses of illegal houses 145 from Greek Life. You should have responded to residents pleading for help, but you did not. We were ignored, again and again, for years. Instead of taking responsibility, the City denied, deflected, and defended. It dismissed our lived experience. It rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. It turned its back on the truth. It is a disgrace. I can only hope that, moving forward, each of you, as elected representatives, will reflect on the choices that have led us here and commit to making better, braver decisions rooted in truth, transparency, and a genuine concern for the well-being of all residents. Do the right thing and hold Cal Poly accountable. The people of San Luis Obispo deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Alta Vista Resident, soon to be displaced from the home we love 146 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Saturday, July 12, 2025 3:14 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: SCLC: Purpose and Parity I’m sorry for the loss of your mother. I am sure the pain is unbearable. Hang in there. From: kathie walker < Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 10:07 AM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Hi Michelle, Thank you for your response. Yes, it is true that there was discssion about the specific St. Fratty's/St. Patrick's Day event, after some arm- twisting to have the issue included as an initiative for 2024-2025. However, the larger issue and the main factors addessed by the Grand Jury within the four chapters of its report are related to the dozens of illegal fraternities embedded in the residential neighborhoods that cause absolute mayhem and gravely affect the residents who live in these neighborhoods (and The Tribune article & Editorial by the Tribune Board related to the same issue). Those issues have never been agendized or discussed, even though it has been brought up during every SCLC meeting by two members who represent the neighborhoods. (The third member representing the neighborhoods has never brought up the issue and has criticized those who do.) To claim that SCLC has been a forum for actual discussion about this issue is not true. The two members have tried to discuss it and have hit a brick wall again and again. That's one of my points. I included some history for context, as I've seen the evolution of SCLC, and the Council was purposeful when it recommended the two additional seats for residents impacted by college students 10 years ago. Those seats should be appointed by the Neighborhood Groups, not elected by the SCLC, which is primarily Cal Poly and City representatives. Go back to the original intent of expanded the membership to include those two seats, and the Council was specific about the intent of those seats, tying them to residents in SLO who are impacted, and who would align with and support the RQN representative. That's another point that should be addressed. The City is defending against the Grand Jury report by citing the SCLC as a committee that "provides a forum for discussions of shared resident and student concerns and needs." It is not honest to allege that there is open discussion or any solutions for the neighborhood issues brought forward by Mila and Brett. The Grand Jury asked for, and I provided, the recordings of the SCLC meetings. They knew that St. Fratty's/St. Patrick's Day was a standing item on the agenda and heard the reports. That was only one of the issues in their report, which they commended Cal Poly and the City for solving in 2025. 147 They also heard the criticism toward Brett and Mila, and the stonewalling when trying to have the matter addressed by the committee. That is the bigger issue, and the neighborhood problems related to the fraternities are not getting solved. The intent of the Council when the two seats were added was for representatives who are impacted by college students or are involved in neighborhood groups to bring those issues forward. Sorry if I'm repetitive. We've been going through a lot. My mom died two weeks ago, and Steve and I have decided to leave the neighborhood. We are grieving. On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 6:23 AM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, Thanks for your email. I appreciate you sharing your concerns as always. There is too much to respond directly to in your email, but I will say that I attended both my assigned meetings of the SCLC earlier this year and happen to have had the opportunity to participate three meetings in a row, before the St. Patrick’s Day just by coincidence of my assigned meeting this year and last. At all the meetings, there was critical discussion and constructive feedback provided and I believe all this (and many other complimentary efforts) contributed to the largely much more contained events this past holiday. It was a constructive discussion effort that, while everyone did not always agree, resulted positively and put us, together, on a path to more future improvements. If we can all keep approaching these challenges constructively, we will get where we want to go together. That said, because there is so much in your email, I am not clear of what your actual request or question is. If you would like to give me two or three sentences on any specific requests you have, I will be happy to try and respond or get answers. Thank you, Michelle From: kathie walker < Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 8:03:56 PM To: 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>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Dear City Councilmembers, The Agenda item 8a for the meeting on July 15, 2025, has some "Background" that lists some "approaches by the City that have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings," and it lists the SCLC meetings as one of the approaches. I want to address some of the items on the list separately, starting with the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC). Considering the SCLC is referenced in the City’s response to the Grand Jury and the Agenda as one of the resources to help solve neighborhood issues, there is value in the historical context of SCLC and the relatively recent evolution. Here are some of the important developments to consider: The SCLC was formed in 1987 “to address issues regarding the community and Cal Poly students,” according to its original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Cuesta College was included in 1988. The original purpose and “mission statement” of the committee were to address issues regarding the community and college students. 148 However, portions of the MOU were recently revised by Police Chief Rick Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford, as covered in greater detail below. The Legislative edits showing the MOU before and after it was edited is attached to this email. History of Neighborhood Representatives on the SCLC The previous MOU, before it was revised, listed members of SCLC from Cal Poly, Cuesta, the City of San Luis Obispo, the 5 th District Supervisor and community members including one seat for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) and two seats for other residents which are to be appointed by the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. The “Resident Organizations” referred to organized neighborhoods such as Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Monterey Heights Neighborhood Association (MHNA), and Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF). Those two additional seats for residents impacted by college students in their neighborhood were added in 2016, based on the recommendation of the city council after the Civility-Neighborhood Wellness Report was presented to the council in 2015. Christine Wallace of SLOPD made the presentation. She was then the Neighborhood Outreach Manager and is now the Police Public Affairs Manager and is a voting member of the SCLC. The SCLC updated their MOU in January 2019 to read: “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations shall: Appoint one member from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods; Appoint one member to represent Geographic Neighborhood Association; and Appoint one community member-at-large...” The voting members on SCLC are mostly associated with Cal Poly and Cuesta College. The expansion of two residents' seats on SCLC was to give parity to those residents who are impacted by college students living in the neighborhoods, and to support one another to bring issues forward to be addressed during committee meetings, as stated by the City Council when the SCLC was expanded to include the two additional seats. Some seats were vacant following inconsistent SCLC meetings during the COVID-19 shutdown, including the two resident seats appointed by the Resident Organizations. The two seats were not formally listed as vacant until the SCLC meeting in January 2023. At the SCLC meeting in March 2023, the Resident Organizations brought forward two residents for appointments to the two seats, as is their right per the MOU at that time: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, who lives in the Neighborhoods North of Foothill geographic area, and Lydia Mourenza who has advocated for neighborhood wellness and also lives in the northern part of the city. During the same meeting, San Luis Obispo mayor Erica Stewart recommended that Abe Lincoln be appointed to one of the resident seats, although Mr. Lincoln is not affiliated with the Resident Organizations and was not recommended by them. Mr. Lincoln lives in the Arbors development, which is not affected by issues such as noisy parties and disturbances by college-aged students, and he had never advocated on behalf of any neighborhood association related to neighborhood wellness or the adverse impact of college students in their neighborhood. Mr. Lincoln’s neighborhood has an HOA that prevents the sort of disturbances experienced by college student-impacted neighborhoods. During the March 2023 meeting, Mayor Stewart made a motion to appoint Abe Lincoln. Christine Wallace seconded the motion, and it was passed, which gave Mr. Lincoln one of the seats that were supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations according to SCLC's MOU. Although the Resident Organizations had two people at the meeting that they planned to appoint to the two seats, the SCLC rejected one of their appointments (Lydia Mourenza), contrary to the provisions of the MOU. 149 Notably, Ms. Wallace gave the presentation of the Civility Report to the City Council in 2015, where all five council members recommended the expansion of SCLC by two seats, and each council member said that they should be residents who are concerned with the town gown relationship with the impacts by college students in their neighborhood. Ms. Wallace was also present at the SCLC meeting in January 2019, when the MOU was modified to give the power of appointment of the three “resident” seats to the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. In May 2023, Sandra Rowley went to the SCLC meeting to correct the mistake. She is the chair of RQN and is in communication with the chairs of Resident Organizations such as AVNA, NNOF, etc. Ms. Rowley read the terms of the MOU out loud and pointed out that Mr. Lincoln was illegally appointed to a seat that is supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations. She asked him to step down so the Resident Organizations could appoint their representative, according to the terms of the MOU. Mr. Lincoln refused and posted about the situation on his Facebook page, claiming he was “appointed” by the mayor, Erica Stewart, instead of them [RQN’s appointed person], and he had no intention to step down with the hashtag #smalltownpolitics. In the comments of his Facebook post, Mr. Lincoln criticized another Representative [RQN Board Member Brett Cross], saying: “in the two meetings I have attended a fair amount of time is spent by one individual complaining about the students. I am aiming to try to help change that tone.” And in another comment, he said, “I did mention bringing back Mardi Gras in my first meeting. Maybe that’s what caused the alarm *laughing emoji*” 150 Indeed, Mr. Lincoln has continued to criticize those who have brought up the problems related to noise from illegal fraternities during SCLC meetings and read a prepared statement condemning me and my husband, specifically calling out the website “How to Ruin a Neighborhood”. He has never engaged in any discussion about the noise and problems experienced by those living in the northern part of the city, and such issues were the original intent of the SCLC. The SCLC meetings were recorded so there is no confusion about what has been said during the meetings. When the city council discussed expanding SCLC in 2015, to include two additional seats for residents, they commented that it would be good for the lone community resident on SCLC at that time - the RQN representative – because the RQN representative would feel supported by the two additional residents impacted by college students who would fill the two new seats on the committee. Obviously, Mr. Lincoln’s criticism has not been supportive and is not consistent with the purpose of the seat he is occupying, especially according to the directives of the City Council in 2015. When Ms. Rowley pointed out SCLC’s failure to follow the MOU to appoint Lydia Mourenza to the then-City Manager, she was referred to the Police Chief to resolve the issue. There was some discussion between Ms. Rowley and Chief Scott about a resolution before the fall of 2023, and Chief Scott indicated there could be a resolution to allow a resident who lives in an impacted neighborhood to be appointed to SCLC. 151 However, when the matter was brought up by Ms. Rowley during the first SCLC meeting in August 2024, Chief Scott was silent on the matter, and it was not corrected. Then, Chief Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford revised the MOU to exclude the Resident Organizations’ ability to appoint representatives to the two “resident” seats. The edits eliminated the two seats appointed by the “Resident Organizations” and gave the power to SCLC to elect the residents that SCLC (mostly Cal Poly and City representatives) agree to. A Google doc shows the edits made by both Chief Scott and Ms. Crawford in the right hand column of the document. The revised MOU took away the appointed seats from the organized neighborhood groups who are most impacted by issues related to college students living in their neighborhood. Every other seat in SLCL is “provided” by the City, County, Cal Poly, or Cuesta, and some members are “appointed”, as listed in the MOU. None of those seats are elected by the SCLC. Now, under the terms of the rewritten MOU, the seats for residents are decided by a popularity contest for those who have connections with city leadership, like Mr. Lincoln who was brought forward by the mayor of SLO, even though his is not affiliated with any organized neighborhood group who works for neighborhood wellness related to the negative impacts of college student-issues. It seems that the original intent of SCLC has been pushed aside for a more political “public relations” type agenda. For exam ple, the problem with the illegal fraternity operations within single-family neighborhoods was brought up by the RQN Representative and/or Geographical Neighborhood Representative during 2023-2024 and every SCLC meeting during 2024- 2025 and was never put on the agenda or discussed. The situation today in 2025 is worse than it was in 2023, with more illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods than ever. Unless there is significant pushback from multiple SCLC members, Cal Poly does not engage in solving serious problems. For example, during the first meeting of the academic year in August 2024, the City Manager and others listed St. Fratty’s / St. Patrick’s Day as an important initiative to be discussed for the 2024-2025 academic year. During the next meeting in September 2024, the chair, Cal Poly ASI president Ashley Spragins, presented the list of initiatives for the year and it did not include St. Fratty's / St. Patrick's Day. Ms. McDonald pointed out that St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day was missing from the list of initiatives, and Ms. Spragins pulled out a hard copy of the newer MOU and read the revised first sentence, "SCLC will serve as a mechanism of communication among Cal Poly, the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis Obispo community, to develop and strengthen town gown relationships." She then questioned how the St. Patrick’s Day problem aligned with that statement. The implication was that it did not, and it was apparent that the issue was intentionally left off the list of initiatives because Cal Poly did not want to address it. There was significant pushback from City representatives, including the City Manager, Whitney McDonald, Councilmember Andy Pease, Mayor Erica Stewart, Christine Wallace, and the two Neighborhood Representatives for Geographical Neighborhoods and RQN. Ms. Spragins finally gave in and added it to the list of initiatives. Ms. McDonald asked that Cal Poly provide a report about St. Patrick’s Day plans as a standing item on the SCLC agenda. Without that pushback, the item would not have been included as an SCLC initiative for last academic year 2024-2025. 152 This highlights the heart of the matter, which is that the concerns of the two Representatives in the extreme minority speak out about real issues in the neighborhoods near Cal Poly are never agendized or addressed by the SCLC. Those Representatives are also not supported by the City Representatives on SCLC and have been criticized by other members of SCLC for stating their concerns. It seems like SCLC is pointless when it comes to solving meaningful neighborhood issues, which was the original purpose of the SCLC and was emphasized in the Civility Report in 2015. The problem was amplified when MOU eliminated the ability of the “Resident Organizations” to appoint two representatives independent of Cal Poly, Cuesta, and the City. The context and reasoning for that rule were explained to Police Chief Scott, but were ignored when he revised the MOU with Ms. Crawford. The limited voice of the Geographical Neighborhood, Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre, and RQN Representative, Mr. Cross, certainly has not carried any weight to solve the problems of illegal fraternities and ongoing associated noise, etc., as outlined in the Grand Jury report, even though the City represents an argument that SCLC is an inclusive avenue that does solve neighborhood town- gown problems. That narrative is false, and those issues brough up by Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre and Mr. Cross have been ignored by the SCLC overall. Discourse is a necessary part of the purpose of the SCLC. If each member is appointed by Cal Poly and City leadership without giving residents affected by college students in their neighborhoods, it defeats the intended purpose and mission of SCLC and becomes another political group with “elected” members associated with the majority. There should be more impacted residents on the SCLC to bring parity and real solutions to the issues felt by the neighborhoods in the northern part of the City. Otherwise, it is disingenous for the City to represent that Representatives concerned for the neighborhoods who have spoken out about neighborhood issuses are "heard" or have any impact on the problems outlined in the Grand Jury report. Thank you for your consideration. -Kathie Walker 153 From:Matthew < Sent:Saturday, July 12, 2025 10:58 AM To:Zion, Sarah Subject:Re: Request to Continue Administrative Hearing to Late September - Citation #ADM 42480 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Yes, I accept. On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 11:14 AM Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Matthew, The hearing officer has reviewed your request and a continuance can be granted to September 23, 2025, at 3:00 pm. If you choose to accept this continuance, please confirm in writing that you waive your right to have your hearing held within 60 days of filing your appeal. Sarah Zion pronouns she/her/hers Legal Assistant II City Attorney's Office 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E szion@slocity.org T 805.783.7856 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. 154 From: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 9:32 AM To: Matthew < ; City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Request to Continue Administrative Hearing to Late September - Citation #ADM 42480 Hello Matthew, Your request has been sent to the hearing officer. I will send an update once a determination has been made. Sarah Zion pronouns she/her/hers Legal Assistant II City Attorney's Office 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E szion@slocity.org T 805.783.7856 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. From: Matthew < Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 9:17 AM To: City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Subject: Request to Continue Administrative Hearing to Late September - Citation #ADM 42480 155 Hearing Officer Sharon Whitney c/o City Attorney’s Office 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Hearing Officer Whitney, I hope you are doing well. I am writing to respectfully request a continuance of my administrative appeal hearing currently scheduled for July 31, 2025, at 3:30 PM for Administrative Citation #ADM 42480. My executive board and I, who are representing our fraternity's house in this matter, are home for the summer and working full-time jobs. Given our work commitments and the travel distance, it is difficult for us to attend the scheduled hearing date. We want to appear in person to present our case and ensure we can answer any questions directly. Therefore, I request that the hearing be rescheduled to a date in late September, once we have returned to San Luis Obispo and can fully participate in the process. I believe this constitutes good cause for a continuance, as it impacts our ability to represent ourselves. Thank you for considering my request. Please let me know if you need any additional information or documentation from me. Best, Matthew Gnos 156 From:Karen Adler < Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 6:37 PM To:Kathie & Steve Walker Cc:Marx, Jan; Stewart, Erica A; Shoresman, Michelle; Boswell, Mike; Francis, Emily Subject:Re: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Mayor & City Council Members: What Kathie Walker has detailed is the unvarnished truth! What you are asking the residents of the Alta Vista Neighborhood to do is tolerate mayhem! Because this neighborhood is in close proximity to Cal Poly you act like that is our tough luck! I have lived at my residence for over 60 years & my now deceased ex-husband & I raised our four (4) children here. Then there were many families in this area but one by one they have left due to the fact of being over-run by loud Fraternity parties. We make an effort to try to co-exist with our younger neighbors but we should not have to put up with Fraternity activities 5 nights out of every week. The City of SLO NEEDS to insist that Cal Poly build a Fraternity/Sorority Row to house THEIR students! They have plenty of land to do so & crying “poor” is now falling on deaf ears! Bottom line: We need relief & support from the City to whom we pay our taxes. We would appreciate you supporting your residents rather than the bottom line dollars that CP pours into our community! Karen Adler - SLO native & Chairperson of Alta Vista Neighborhood Association On Jul 11, 2025, at 3:17 PM, kathie walker < wrote: Dear City Council members, My mom died two weeks ago, on June 28, 2025, after a devastating battle with brain cancer. Sadly, she was drawn into far-right politics and firmly believed Ivermectin would cure her disease. Despite efforts from family members, she rejected all other treatments. Misinformation stole her chance at life. I am shaken by her loss and furious that she was misled by voices who value ideology over truth. We are living through terrifying times, when politicians claim “up is down” and too many people believe them, even when reality says otherwise. Most days, I can’t even turn on the television. The news feels surreal. I fear for our collective future. In the midst of all this uncertainty, I long for something stable and familiar. I wish I could rely on the comfort of living peacefully in San Luis Obispo, where my mom, her mom, and my own children and grandchildren have lived. I wish I could believe in a hometown where City leadership and elected officials uphold truth, transparency, and integrity. But I don’t. For nearly two decades, my family has lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood, which is now overrun by illegal fraternity houses that have shattered our peace and impacted our health. This is not 157 about noisy student parties. These are full-scale fraternity operations - dozens of them - with waves of screaming partiers parading from house to house on weekends. What we witness from our front yard would shock most people. No one in a residential neighborhood should have to live through the chaos we’ve endured. This has taken a toll on our health. I now receive medical treatment for anxiety, and my dentist recently said I’ve started grinding my teeth at night, which has damaged them. My husband, Steve, cannot take medications because FAA regulations govern his job, but his health has also been affected. He’s had to miss work because the lack of sleep from noisy fraternity parties has left him too exhausted to safely perform his duties. That’s how serious this is. It has wrecked our lives. Since Fall 2021, I’ve sent you videos documenting violations and raging parties at known illegal fraternity houses in R1 and R2 zones. SLOPD cleared most as “negative violation” or “unable to locate.” I’ve invited you, the Council, to come see for yourselves. No one has taken me up on my invitation. But others did. A reporter from The Tribune came. The Tribune Editorial Board urged the City to act quickly and deemed the neighborhood “unlivable.” The Grand Jury also visited during a weekend and saw the mayhem firsthand. Their report concluded that the neighborhood is “almost unlivable for most residents.” The City’s response? “There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are 'almost unlivable'…” Up is down. When it comes to noise, I’ve sent you video after video of insanely loud fraternity parties. There are 40 illegal fraternity houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood, where there were only a few ten years ago. There are almost a dozen in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, where there were zero ten years ago. I’ve highlighted the addresses of noise complaints tied to these properties from SLOPD’s weekend logs. The Grand Jury’s finding of three citations per weekend in this small neighborhood was conservative. The City’s response? “There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years…” Up is down. When the Grand Jury released its report, I felt a flicker of hope that finally, something might change. Instead, the City responded with a 27-page document full of denials, corrections, and deflections. Reading it made me physically ill. After a second and third reading, I felt embarrassed on the City’s behalf. Many of the corrections were trivial and did not address the core issue. The City doubled down and refused to accept responsibility. Up is down. 158 Then, as the reality of the City’s indifference set in, my mother died. She was 21 years older than I am. It hit me: if my life follows the same path, I may only have 21 autumns left. Twenty-one Christmases. Twenty-one summers. Such limited chances to be present with my family, and I cannot afford to spend them in a place where Thursday through Sunday, peace is shattered and rest is impossible. How can I live in a neighborhood where I cannot actually live? So, with the help of our daughter and son-in-law, we made a heartbreaking, financially devastating decision. We bought a home in a quieter neighborhood near Sinsheimer Park. It will cost us thousands of dollars more per month and wipe out our savings. But we had no choice. We needed peace to survive. The City should have enforced its zoning laws, but it has not. Not a single fraternity has been shut down. It should have held Cal Poly’s fraternities accountable, but it hasn’t even obtained the addresses of illegal houses from Greek Life. You should have responded to residents pleading for help, but you did not. We were ignored, again and again, for years. Instead of taking responsibility, the City denied, deflected, and defended. It dismissed our lived experience. It rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. It turned its back on the truth. It is a disgrace. I can only hope that, moving forward, each of you, as elected representatives, will reflect on the choices that have led us here and commit to making better, braver decisions rooted in truth, transparency, and a genuine concern for the well-being of all residents. Do the right thing and hold Cal Poly accountable. The people of San Luis Obispo deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Alta Vista Resident, soon to be displaced from the home we love 159 From:Jeff Eidelman < Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 3:59 PM To:Kathie Walker Cc:Marx, Jan; Stewart, Erica A; Shoresman, Michelle; Boswell, Mike; Francis, Emily Subject:Re: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Dear City Council First a prayer for Kathie who just lost her mom! Secondly, I cannot believe the work and dedication, the literal slave labor, the intensity, the use of multiple resources that Kathie has put into doing this! She should be commended, even though she has pointed out some difficult points about the City Council and the Police! I know what Kathie has lived through, because I live in the heart of this mess too. Her persistence and thoroughness in gathering these details is beyond my understanding and ability . There were nights before I retired, that I got woken up by noise between midnight and 3:00 a.m. when I had to get up at 6:00 to go do surgery on 1 or 2 people at French hospital! Believe me, it happened more than once. It is a very unenviable position to be in. Her husband Steve has the same problem as I did. I’m retired now and that specifically doesn’t happen to me, but I still get woken up. There were so many unbelievably loud parties coming from the 1300 and 1400 block of E. Foothill all Saturday afternoons for months. Nighttime is also no exception! Yes, I know the city didn’t renew 2 permits for 2 of these frat houses, but the problem is real, it still exists. Some of you have privately told me you are not happy about the situation and I appreciate that. However, if you can’t fix it, who can? Finally, after 46 years of living here, 24 at my current address, when are you going to take this seriously and do something about it? Maybe it won’t be good for your political careers. We are some of the last few standing families in this neighborhood. I don’t want to move!! I love my house and my backyard. My children and grandchildren who also live in SLO love it too. Once again, I beg you for the umpteenth time, DO SOMETHING! Get the city attorney, pass some regulations, pressure Cal Poly, threaten legal action if necessary. It’s no longer a time to ‘BE NICE’! The time is now, the momentum is here. Please act! I am 71 years old now. I was 26 when I came here. I want to see this happen. PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING!!! This is your job as Mayor and as Coucilmembers. Wha t is really important about our lives here in San Luis? There are many things, I agree, but this is on the top of my list. Please put it on yours too! Respectfully, Jeff Eidelman On Jul 11, 2025, at 3:17 PM, kathie walker < wrote: Dear City Councilmembers, My mom died two weeks ago, on June 28, 2025, after a devastating battle with brain cancer. Sadly, she was drawn into far-right politics and firmly believed Ivermectin would cure her disease. Despite efforts from family members, she rejected all other treatments. Misinformation stole her chance at life. 160 I am shaken by her loss and furious that she was misled by voices who value ideology over truth. We are living through terrifying times, when politicians claim “up is down” and too many people believe them, even when reality says otherwise. Most days, I can’t even turn on the television. The news feels surreal. I fear for our collective future. In the midst of all this uncertainty, I long for something stable and familiar. I wish I could rely on the comfort of living peacefully in San Luis Obispo, where my mom, her mom, and my own children and grandchildren have lived. I wish I could believe in a hometown where City leadership and elected officials uphold truth, transparency, and integrity. But I don’t. For nearly two decades, my family has lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood, which is now overrun by illegal fraternity houses that have shattered our peace and impacted our health. This is not about noisy student parties. These are full-scale fraternity operations - dozens of them - with waves of screaming partiers parading from house to house on weekends. What we witness from our front yard would shock most people. No one in a residential neighborhood should have to live through the chaos we’ve endured. This has taken a toll on our health. I now receive medical treatment for anxiety, and my dentist recently said I’ve started grinding my teeth at night, which has damaged them. My husband, Steve, cannot take medications because FAA regulations govern his job, but his health has also been affected. He’s had to miss work because the lack of sleep from noisy fraternity parties has left him too exhausted to safely perform his duties. That’s how serious this is. It has wrecked our lives. Since Fall 2021, I’ve sent you videos documenting violations and raging parties at known illegal fraternity houses in R1 and R2 zones. SLOPD cleared most as “negative violation” or “unable to locate.” I’ve invited you, the Council, to come see for yourselves. No one has taken me up on my invitation. But others did. A reporter from The Tribune came. The Tribune Editorial Board urged the City to act quickly and deemed the neighborhood “unlivable.” The Grand Jury also visited during a weekend and saw the mayhem firsthand. Their report concluded that the neighborhood is “almost unlivable for most residents.” The City’s response? “There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are 'almost unlivable'…” Up is down. When it comes to noise, I’ve sent you video after video of insanely loud fraternity parties. There are 40 illegal fraternity houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood, where there were only a few ten years ago. There are almost a dozen in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, where there were zero ten years ago. I’ve highlighted the addresses of noise complaints tied to these properties from SLOPD’s weekend logs. The Grand Jury’s finding of three citations per weekend in this small neighborhood was conservative. The City’s response? “There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years…” 161 Up is down. When the Grand Jury released its report, I felt a flicker of hope that finally, something might change. Instead, the City responded with a 27-page document full of denials, corrections, and deflections. Reading it made me physically ill. After a second and third reading, I felt embarrassed on the City’s behalf. Many of the corrections were trivial and did not address the core issue. The City doubled down and refused to accept responsibility. Up is down. Then, as the reality of the City’s indifference set in, my mother died. She was 21 years older than I am. It hit me: if my life follows the same path, I may only have 21 autumns left. Twenty-one Christmases. Twenty-one summers. Such limited chances to be present with my family, and I cannot afford to spend them in a place where Thursday through Sunday, peace is shattered and rest is impossible. How can I live in a neighborhood where I cannot actually live? So, with the help of our daughter and son-in-law, we made a heartbreaking, financially devastating decision. We bought a home in a quieter neighborhood near Sinsheimer Park. It will cost us thousands of dollars more per month and wipe out our savings. But we had no choice. We needed peace to survive. The City should have enforced its zoning laws, but it has not. Not a single fraternity has been shut down. It should have held Cal Poly’s fraternities accountable, but it hasn’t even obtained the addresses of illegal houses from Greek Life. You should have responded to residents pleading for help, but you did not. We were ignored, again and again, for years. Instead of taking responsibility, the City denied, deflected, and defended. It dismissed our lived experience. It rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. It turned its back on the truth. It is a disgrace. I can only hope that, moving forward, each of you, as elected representatives, will reflect on the choices that have led us here and commit to making better, braver decisions rooted in truth, transparency, and a genuine concern for the well-being of all residents. Do the right thing and hold Cal Poly accountable. The people of San Luis Obispo deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Alta Vista Resident, soon to be displaced from the home we love 162 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 3:56 PM To:Corey, Tyler; Cohen, Rachel Subject:FW: Delta Chi Cal Poly Chapter - Appeal Attachments:2025-07-11.Final Delta Chi Cal Poly Chapter - Appeal Support Info.pdf Hi team, Please see what the applicants submitted for the appeal of the Delta Chi CUP item. Thank you, Timmi From: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 3:31 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Delta Chi Cal Poly Chapter - Appeal Dear Timmi, Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with the attached correspondence in support of the appeal. Please see the attached. I had an occasion to express our approach to the City Manager and look forward to working with her, you, your staff, Cal Poly, and my clients toward a resolution. Upon review of the attached, I would appreciate your thoughts. Perhaps, we can talk/meet soon. In the interim, have a lovely, long dog days of summer weekend. Yours, as always, C.M. Florence, AICP Principal Planner OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805.541.4509 I D: 805.548.1561 I M: 805.459.9972 www.oasisassoc.com 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc.com CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907 11 July 2025 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO c/o Ms. Timothea Tway, Community Development Director 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 via email - TTway@slocity.org RE: DELTA CHI CAL POLY CHAPTER, 1236 MONTE VISTA PLACE, SLO, CA APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION REVOCATION OF CUP U106-98 Dear Mayor and Council Members, We represent the Delta Chi Cal Poly Chapter (Delta Chi) who, on June, 20, 2025, lodged an appeal to set aside the Planning Commission’s June 11, 2025 decision to revoke their conditional use permit and to alternatively request that the permit to be amended to address community concerns. We appreciate the opportunity to provide a more robust discussion and relevant evidence to support the Council’s decision to uphold the appeal and enable the staff and the fraternity to work collaboratively to amend the conditional use permit. Thank you, in advance, for the consideration. Initially, there are a few high level ideas that we would like you to consider. 1. Partnership, not punishment. Delta Chi are partners in this community. The question isn’t whether there are problems, it’s whether they can be solved collaboratively. 2. Willingness to be accountable. Delta Chi does not want to avoid regulation. They do want clear, achievable, and enforceable conditions that ensure accountability, as they welcome the oversight. As importantly, Delta Chi currently works within their own defined governance framework.1 3. Track record of improvement. Delta Chi has worked systematically to reduce incidents. Over the past two years, documented violations have declined significantly, reflecting their commitment to improvements. While challenges remain, the trend is clear and positive. And finally, 4. S trong institutional support. Delta Chi is in active participation with Cal Poly’s Fraternity & Sorority Life/Leadership & Service/Student Affairs unit to ensure compliance with both the university 2 and City expectations. Context and Community Legacy San Luis Obispo is a proud and continually evolving town-and-gown community, home to decades of shared experiences between Cal Poly students and long-term residents. While these relationships have at times been challenging, they are also deeply rooted and resilient. Delta Chi has been a part 1 Attached is a list of additional reference materials that include descriptions of the local chapter bylaws, local property management, the alumni association, and national fraternity oversight. 2 Attached for ease of reference is the Cal Poly Fraternity & Sorority Life Event Registration Procedure, rev. March 25, 2025 which sets the framework for on and off campus events and is “designed to provide a safe social atmosphere for members of the Greek Community and their guests, while allowing them to exercise the personal responsibility expect of each of them”. OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 11 July 2025 DELTA CHI CAL POLY CHAPTER APPEAL Page 2 of 3 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc.com CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907 of this fabric for many years, and like many other fraternities and sororities, they operate off- campus due to the absence of a formal Greek Row. Over time, as both the university and the City have grown, the need for clear expectations, communication, and partnership has become increasingly vital. Good-Faith Reliance and Cooperative History Delta Chi has worked with City staff over the years to comply with permit conditions and to address neighborhood concerns in good faith. While they acknowledge there have been issues, particularly with occupancy and noise, they have also taken steps to respond to feedback and implement operational improvements. Delta Chi has relied on the City’s guidance, including direct communication and staff input, to understand expectations and make changes, accordingly. They have invested time and resources in mitigation measures, adjusted management practices, and have consistently sought to be a constructive member of the community. Notably, in this most recent CUP review, the City’s own staff report recommended amending the permit rather than revoking it, indicating a belief that continued operation under improved conditions is both possible and reasonable. Equity and Proportionality Revocation of the CUP at this stage, after years of interaction and reliance on City feedback, imposes a severe and, we believe, disproportionate penalty—particularly in light of staff’s recommendation for amendment. It also undermines the City’s stated goal of collaborative problem-solving with student organizations. While legal doctrines such as equitable estoppel may not strictly apply to municipal decisions, the underlying principles—fairness, reliance, and proportionality—are relevant here. Delta Chi acted in good faith based on the City’s past positions and now face significant hardship due to a sudden change in course. A Call for Constructive Resolution We are not asking the City Council to excuse past shortcomings. Instead, we are asking for a path forward that reflects the complexity of this issue and the opportunity for shared responsibility. The fraternity members, past and present, remain open and committed to working with City staff, neighbors, and university partners to strengthen permit conditions, improve accountability, and preserve Delta Chi’s place in the San Luis Obispo community. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Council: 1. Uphold this appeal; 2. Reverse the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke the CUP; and 3. Direct staff to pursue amendments to the permit in coordination with Delta Chi.3 We thank the Council for its consideration and for continuing to foster thoughtful dialogue between student organizations and the broader community. On behalf of Delta Chi, the fraternity members remain committed to being part of the solution. 3 The second attachment to this correspondence represents preliminary comments on staff’s previous recommendations to the Planning Commission to amend the original CUP. These are offered to correct the record and as a starting point to thoughtfully amend the permit in light of existing and potential future circumstances. OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 11 July 2025 DELTA CHI CAL POLY CHAPTER APPEAL Page 3 of 3 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc.com CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907 Respectfully submitted, OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. C.M. Florence, AICP Agent DELTA CHI CAL POLY CHAPTER Attachments – • 1 – List of Delta Chi Cal Poly Chapter’s Existing Internal Governance Framework • 2 – Event Registration Procedure, Cal Poly Fraternity & Sorority Life, March 2025 • 3 – Draft Comments to SLO Planning Commission Resolution no. XXX-25 cc: C. Green C. Nielsen E. Moffitt S. Pollock M. Holliday Delta Chi Members + Alumni 25-0053 ATTACHMENT 1 List of Delta Chi Cal Poly Chapter’s Existing Internal Governance Framework 11 July 2025 Local Chapter Bylaws and Governance The Cal Poly Chapter of Delta Chi operates under a formal set of local bylaws adopted by its membership. These bylaws govern the operations of the chapter, including leadership elections, financial procedures, conduct expectations, and adherence to university and national standards. They serve as a constitutionally binding document that ensures internal accountability, democratic leadership succession, and operational continuity from year to year. In addition, Delta Chi has adopted a Risk Management Plan that includes the following items: emergency contact list; event planning; harm reduction; code of conduct; crisis management; and fire safety. Local Housing Corporation Oversight Delta Chi’s physical property, located at 1236 Monte Vista Place, San Luis Obispo, CA, is managed by a dedicated local housing corporation. This entity, typically composed of alumni volunteers, is responsible for property maintenance, safety compliance, and financial oversight of the facility, in conjunction with our landlord. The housing corporation plays a critical role in ensuring that the chapter property is managed responsibly and that the property is safe and livable, in cooperation with the property owner, regardless of the changing undergraduate leadership. Active Alumni Association Involvement Delta Chi Cal Poly maintains an active alumni association that provides mentorship, guidance, and institutional memory. The alumni are deeply involved in supporting the chapter’s educational programs, leadership development, and operations, and frequently assist with transitional planning, risk management, and disciplinary concerns. This alumni network provides consistent intergenerational support and ensures continuity through leadership transitions. National Fraternity Oversight and Support As a chapter of the Delta Chi Fraternity, Inc., a nationally recognized fraternity established in 1890, the Cal Poly Chapter benefits from oversight and resources provided by the national headquarters. The national organization provides training, operational audits, risk management programs, leadership education, and crisis response protocols. They also ensure that all local chapters remain in good standing with respect to national policies and standards. In the event of a local leadership issue or disruption, the national fraternity has the capacity and authority to intervene and help restore structure and compliance. Revised March 2025 EVENT REGISTRATION PROCEDURE All members of Cal Poly-affiliated fraternities and sororities, and the Interfraternity Council, the Panhellenic Council, and the United Sorority & Fraternity Council at Cal Poly (collectively the “Fraternity and Sorority Community”), shall abide by all University policies and federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including those that govern the use, distribution, and consumption of alcohol. This Event Registration Procedure sets forth procedures designed to provide a safe social atmosphere for members of the Greek Community and their guests, while allowing them to exercise the personal responsibility expected of each of them. The following objectives are essential to achieving this aim: •To encourage social responsibility in all members, with emphasis on safety and risk management; •To encourage responsibility in the use of alcohol and thereby reduce the risks associated with alcohol misuse at parties; •To increase the safety of everyone in attendance at chapter -sponsored events with and without alcohol; •To support the ideals and values on which fraternities and sororities are founded; •To practice self-governance as a Fraternity and Sorority Life Community; •To educate the general membership of the Fraternity and Sorority Life community about the importance of risk management. 1 The University does not accept legal liability for the activities engaged in by fraternities and sororities, and their members. ATTACHMENT 2 Revised March 2025 Table of Contents Article I - What defines an event? Article II - Legal Article III - Events with Alcohol Present Article IV - Events without Alcohol Present Article V - Locations Article VI - Registration Process Article VII - Judicial Article VIII - Amnesty Article IX - Procedure Revision Revised March 2025 Article I - What defines an event? A. An “event” for the purposes of this document is any activity sponsored or endorsed by the organization/chapter including those that occur on and off chapter premises. Article II – Legal A. Any event as defined above must be compliant with all applicable laws, including but not limited to the below requirements: a. The organization, members and guests must comply with all federal, state, and local laws. No person under the legal drinking age my possess, consume, provide or be provided alcoholic beverages b. Organizations, members and guests must follow the federal law regarding illegal drugs and controlled substances. No persons may possess, use, provide, distribute, sell and or manufacture illegal drugs or other controlled substances while on organizational/ chapter premises or at any activity or event which is sponsored or endorsed by the chapter B. Laws local to San Luis Obispo are also enforced with events. The following is provided for convenience only and is not all-inclusive. Laws may change and it is up to the chapter to be aware of all applicable laws. Some relevant laws include: a. Noise Ordinance i. 7 A.M. to 10 P.M.: Noise that can be heard 50 feet from the source is a violation ii. 10 P.M. to 7 A.M.: Noise that can be heard across the property line is a violation b. Safety Enhancement Zones i. Fines are doubled for the following violations: 1. Noise 2. Unruly Gathering 3. Social Host Liability 4. Public Urination 5. Open Container ii. Designated times for Safety Enhancement Zones may vary, but typically occur during: 1. Mardi Gras (Thursday - Wednesday) 2. St. Patrick’s Day 3. Halloween Revised March 2025 4. “WOW’ Week Article III – Events with Alcohol Present A. Guest Lists and Sober Monitors a. Any event where alcohol is present is required to be a closed event, with guest lists submitted to the FSL office by the deadline (see Article VI) b. Attendance by non-members at any event where alcohol is present must be by invitation only by the organization. Chapters must utilize the guest list template provided by the FSL Office. Attendance at events where alcohol is present is limited to a guest-to-member ratio of 2:1 and must not exceed local fire or building code capacity of the organizational/chapter premises or host venue. c. Any event with alcohol present is also required to have sober monitors present, with quantity based on the number of guests in attendance. i. Three sober monitors (including one from the Executive committee or equivalent) are required at a minimum. ii. For every 40 guests invited to the event, another sober monitor will be required iii. First year members who have been in the chapter for at least one quarter and are initiated members, can serve as sober monitors if the following is in place: 1. Required attendance at one of the annual Social Risk Management workshops hosted the FSL office PRIOR to becoming eligible to serve as a sober monitor 2. Procedures in place attached to the risk management plan, that supports first year students during the event, should conflict arise 3. No more than 30 percent of sober monitors can be first year members B. Any event where alcohol is present can only occur from a. 5:00pm on Thursday until 1:00am on Friday, when Friday is an academic holiday b. 5:00pm on Friday until 1:00am on Saturday c. 9:00am on Saturday until 1:00am on Sunday d. 9:00am on Sunday until 1:00am on Monday, when Monday is an academic holiday C. Events with alcohol cannot occur until after the formal recruitment period is over (during quarters where there is a formal recruitment period) unless at a third - party venue and the event is closed with no potential new members in attendance and follows all event registration guidelines. D. Events with alcohol are prohibited from lasting longer than five hours continuously E. Sources of Alcohol a. Alcoholic beverages must either be: Revised March 2025 i. Provided and sold by a licensed and insured third-party vendor, e.g., restaurant, bar, caterer, etc.) or ii. Brought by the individual members and guests through a bring your own beverage system. b. Common sources of alcohol, including bulk quantities, which are not being served by a licensed and insured third-party vendor, are prohibited (i.e. amounts of alcohol greater than what a reasonable person should consume over the duration of the event) c. The presence of alcohol products above 15% alcohol by volume (ABV) is prohibited on any organizational/chapter premises or at any event, except when served at an event by a licensed and insured third party vendor. d. Alcoholic beverages must not be purchased with organizational/chapter funds or funds pooled by members or guests (e.g., admission fees, cover fees, collecting funds through digital apps, etc.) F. Bring Your Own Beverage a. Only those of legal drinking age in California may bring and consume alcohol b. Permitted alcohol can only be made available in central common living areas managed by sober monitors designated by the host chapter c. Individuals of legal drinking age may bring beer totaling no more than 72 ounces (equivalent to a six pack of 12 oz beers) or one bottle (750 ml) of wine to the event G. Drinking Games a. No shots, drinking games, or other activities that encourage inappropriate or other rapid consumption or high-risk drinking behaviors shall be allowed. i. The definition of drinking games includes but is not limited to the consumption of shots of alcohol, liquor or alcoholic beverages; the practice of consuming shots equating to one’s age;” beer pong,” “century club,” “beer die”,” dares;” or any other activity involving the consumption of alcohol which involves duress or encouragement related to the consumption of alcohol. H. Consent Talks a. All events with alcohol are required to have a Consent Talk after 30 minutes and no later than 1 hour of the event starting. The Consent Talk will be provided by the chapter’s Violence Prevention Chair (or a designated individual in the case that the Violence Prevention Chair isn’t present) and will be given to all participants at the event. If this is an exchange between two Revised March 2025 FSL organizations, both Violence Prevention Chairs should co-present the information. An example of the Consent Talk is below: “Hi everyone, my name is _____ and I am the Violence Prevention Chair for (insert chapter here). We want everyone to have a great time tonight and feel safe & respected! I am going to give a brief consent talk before we continue with the rest of the night! Remember: 1. Consent is freely given: consent can only be given without coercion, force, threats, or intimidation. It cannot be given by someone who is incapacitated, including due to drugs, alcohol, or medication. 2. Consent is reversible: you can change your mind about anything at any time during sex. 3. Consent is informed: you must know what you are consenting to in order to give consent. 4. Consent is enthusiastic: when it comes to sex you should want to have it. 5. Consent is specific: saying yes to one thing, like making out, does not mean saying yes to everything, like having sex. [Add in values of chapter here, e.g. “we are men /women of high integrity”] If you are interested in hooking up with someone tonight, check in with them and make sure to respect whatever answer they give you. If you see someone crossing a line, making others feel uncomfortable or someone in a vulnerable position, please come up t o me or [insert the name of Chapter President or Risk Manager, whoever is comfortable] if you need absolutely anything at all, we will be at the door (or wherever you stand)! Thank you and have fun!” I. Registration a. Events with alcohol are required to be registered with the FSL office prior to their occurrence and with documents submitted prior to the required deadlines (further outlined in Article VI) Article IV – Events without Alcohol Present A. Guest Lists and Sober Monitors a. Guest lists and sober monitors are not required for events where alcohol is not present, but are encouraged B. Registration Revised March 2025 a. Events without alcohol are required to be registered with the FSL office prior to their occurrence and with documents submitted prior to the required deadlines (further outlined in Article VI) Article V – Locations A. All off-campus events with alcohol must be held at a residence, including a chapter facility, or at a venue under third party management that is not legally associated with the chapter in any capacity (“third-party venue”). B. For all events with alcohol that are located at a third-party venue, a copy of the contract with the chapter and event management company or third -party venue must be submitted with the party registration. Article VI – Registration Process A. The process of online events with alcohol registration must begin at least 10 days before the date of the event. B. Deadlines for completion of registration are every Thursday by 12:00 pm, the weekend of the event. C. A final follow up guest list must be submitted by 12:00 noon Monday following the event with alcohol, with the full names of all attendees and birthdates of all guests who received wristbands for alcohol consumption. a. No future events with alcohol will be reviewed until this requirement is fulfilled D. The chapter’s risk manager must complete a post -event review, which is to be submitted to Cal Poly Fraternity and Sorority Life by 12:00 noon the Wednesday following the event with alcohol. All sober monitors and sober executive members will contribute to this review. For events with alcohol where there may be more than one chapter acting as the event host, each chapter must complete a post- event form. a. No future events with alcohol will be reviewed until this requirement is fulfilled E. Failure to follow these requirements may subject the chapter and/or its individual members to student discipline. Article VII – Judicial A. Failure to follow these procedures will be reviewed by the Office of Student Rights & Responsibilities (OSRR) and may be subject to sanctions. Revised March 2025 B. It is recognized that this procedure cannot address, in specific fashion, all possible social situations that may occur. When this procedure is not specific on a particular point, the Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic Council, and United Sorority & Fraternity Council chapters and their members are expected to conduct their events and themselves in the spirit of social responsibility expressed in this procedure. C. Council judicial boards can also adjudicate if deemed necessary by the OSRR. Article VIII – Amnesty A. The university’s primary concern is for the health, welfare, and safety of all students. As such, in cases of significant intoxication as a result of alcohol or other substances, the university encourages students to seek medical assistance for themselves and/or others. Any student who assists in seeking medical attention for a person in need will not be subject to disciplinary action for conduct in violation of this policy. Article IX – Procedure Revision A. This procedure may be revised at any time by the Fraternity & Sorority Life office, OSRR and Dean of Students. B. This procedure will be reviewed during summer quarter, or at the discretion of the Dean of Students staff, and any revisions will be sent to members of fraternities and sororities immediately and will be effective the first day of the following fall quarter. C. In the event of a mid-academic year review, any revisions will be sent to members of fraternities and sororities immediately upon implementation. ATTACHMENT 3 DRAFT Comments to SLO Planning Commission Resolution No. XXX-25 Amending CUP 5230-98 – Proposed Conditions of Approval (USE-0332-2025) 11 July 2025 The following are a few of the Community Development Department staff proposed conditions of approval, along with our comments, offered as examples of areas that warrant additional consideration and collaboration between the Delta Chi fraternity and the City of San Luis Obispo. We recognize that there may at times be differences of opinion regarding the best way to address certain issues, but there remains a shared goal and objective: to craft clear, reasonable, and enforceable conditions that support the fraternity’s continued operation in a manner that is safe, responsible, and compatible with the surrounding community. Through thoughtful dialogue and partnership, we believe these conditions can be refined to achieve that balance. C ondition of Approval 2. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as soon as practical if conduct on the permitted premises results in three (3) citations within any 12-month period for a violation of law or permit condition that (a) are not contested or are upheld on appeal, and (b) the conduct for which the citations were issued resulted in adverse impacts to, or complaints from, residents or occupants of the surrounding neighborhood. At the time of the Conditional Use Permit review, to ensure ongoing compatibility with nearby uses, conditions of approval may be added, modified, and/or removed, or the Conditional Use Permit may be revoked. The City shall notify Cal Poly if the Use Permit is revoked. A re-review by the Planning Commission shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee. COMMENT: (a clarification for the record) Delta Chi had received three (3) "violations" in the past twelve 12 months, although one was successfully appealed by the time of the May 28, 2025 Planning Commission hearing. This is an important clarification, as the condition of approval wording clearly states that the permit can be up for review if three (3) (emphasis added) citations are received within a twelve (12) months period and (again, emphasis added) the conduct for which the citations were issued resulted in adverse impacts to, or complaints from, residents or occupants of the surrounding neighborhood. While nuanced, this distinction may have prevented the Planning Commission’s revocation decision. C onditional of Approval 4. Routine meetings and gatherings for the fraternity shall be limited to a maximum of 54 people (rounded down from 54.45 = 36.3 people x 1.5), except as otherwise approved by the Community Development Director for special events. If the fraternity hosts special events involving more than 54 people, a transportation management plan to reduce impacts to the surrounding neighborhood shall be submitted to the Community Development Department, at least 30 days prior to the event taking place, for review and approval. No exception from the Noise Ordinance shall be approved by the Director as Part of the special event. Presence of more than 54 people at the property without valid approval from the Community Development Director shall be considered a violation of this Conditional Use Permit. COMMENT: We believe that the focus should not be on the quantity of the people on the property, but on the impact of the gathering on the community, as regulated by objective standards, such as MC Title 9 Chapter 9.12 Noise Control, Chapter 9.13 Unruly gatherings, and Chapter 9.22 Safety Enhancement Zones. Attachment 3 Page 2 of 2 Interestingly, we agree with the City’s response to the recent Grand Jury report regarding standard conditions, "Setting constraints like a uniform set of conditions on the exercise of discretion diminishes the usefulness of the review process to address specific needs over time or for unique circumstances that may exist at specific properties or with particular groups or organizations." Creating a CUP with a custom set of conditions of approval for each fraternity would recognize the differences in the size of the property, number of building occupants allowed, number of parking spaces, and even its location, such as the proximity to Cal Poly. Currently, the one-size-fits-all calculation takes none of the aforementioned into consideration. An example of the need for more customized conditions of approval is found in the revised COA no. 4, that limits the maximum number of residents to thirty five (35) people living on the property, while limiting the maximum number of routine meetings and gatherings to 1.5 times the number of residents or fifty-four (54) people. This is unrealistic and flawed, as there is no consideration of the very site and fraternity specific aspects. For the sake of comparison, and to underscore the need to eliminate the “one size fits all” CUP conditions of approval, the 1.5 formula has been used for other fraternity CUPs, e.g., 2024 Lamda Chi and the 2021 Delta Gamma. Unfortunately, the calculation does not factor in the number of residents, interior building square footage (SF), parking and alternative modes of transportation, both on- and off-site. For example, • Delta Chi accommodates 370 SF per resident, which is higher ratio than Lambda Chi's 240 SF per resident. • Delta Chi has far more residents than Delta Gamma – where they have six (6) residents Delta Chi has thirty five (35) residents. • The Alpha Gamma Delta 2016 CUP was calculated at 2.1 times their residents. • Delta Chi maintains thirty two (32) parking spaces, a fair amount greater than other fraternities, and because of the proximity to the Cal Poly campus, there is no less than forty (40) additional and available parking spaces on campus within 200 feet of the Delta Chi property. In closing, it is essential to move beyond a “one size fits all” approach to fraternity conditional use permit conditions of approval and instead adopt a framework that is tailored to the specific circumstances of each house and organization. This does not diminish the City’s discretionary authority over permit review and approval; rather, it acknowledges that each fraternity operates within its own context, with unique physical constraints, membership structures, and operational goals. By crafting site- and fraternity-specific conditions, the City can more effectively ensure lasting compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, encourage accountability, and support solutions that are practical, enforceable, and responsive to genuine community concerns. 163 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 3:33 PM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Kathie, I am deeply sorry to hear about the loss of your mother. Losing a parent is an unimaginable pain, and I can only imagine how difficult it must be to process everything, especially under such circumstances. Having gone through the loss of my own mother, I know how disorienting and heavy grief can be. I hope you are able to find moments of peace and support in the love of your family as you navigate this heartbreak. As you've acknowledged, the issues in your former neighborhood did not appear overnight and will take some systemic reform to address in a meaningful way. I believe most other communities like ours that have addressed the issue of off-campus fraternities have done so through the universities creating a Greek row or similar structure to place the impactful residences away from the rest of the community. I would love to see Cal Poly make that choice, but in the meantime, the city has some decisions to make regarding how we handle CUPs, repeat code enforcement issues including noise, and other issues relating to quality of life. Although the process moves at a snail’s pace, I’m heartened to see that these items are now on the agenda. I can't imagine your lived experience, but I have frequented the neighborhoods during the noisy times to see firsthand what you describe, and I know that the noise is incredibly challenging. I hope we are able to make some real progress on a more holistic approach to the issue in the upcoming months. I was also saddened to hear about your decision to leave the Alta Vista neighborhood. I recognize how much thought and emotional weight must have gone into making that choice after so many years in a home that held such meaning for your family. I sincerely hope that your move to the Sinsheimer neighborhood brings you some of the peace and stability you’ve been seeking. Take care, Emily Emily Francis pronouns she/her/hers Council Member Office of the City Council 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E EFrancis@slocity.org On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 3:17 PM, kathie walker < wrote: Dear City Councilmembers, 164 My mom died two weeks ago, on June 28, 2025, after a devastating battle with brain cancer. Sadly, she was drawn into far-right politics and firmly believed Ivermectin would cure her disease. Despite efforts from family members, she rejected all other treatments. Misinformation stole her chance at life. I am shaken by her loss and furious that she was misled by voices who value ideology over truth. We are living through terrifying times, when politicians claim “up is down” and too many people believe them, even when reality says otherwise. Most days, I can’t even turn on the television. The news feels surreal. I fear for our collective future. In the midst of all this uncertainty, I long for something stable and familiar. I wish I could rely on the comfort of living peacefully in San Luis Obispo, where my mom, her mom, and my own children and grandchildren have lived. I wish I could believe in a hometown where City leadership and elected officials uphold truth, transparency, and integrity. But I don’t. For nearly two decades, my family has lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood, which is now overrun by illegal fraternity houses that have shattered our peace and impacted our health. This is not about noisy student parties. These are full-scale fraternity operations - dozens of them - with waves of screaming partiers parading from house to house on weekends. What we witness from our front yard would shock most people. No one in a residential neighborhood should have to live through the chaos we’ve endured. This has taken a toll on our health. I now receive medical treatment for anxiety, and my dentist recently said I’ve started grinding my teeth at night, which has damaged them. My husband, Steve, cannot take medications because FAA regulations govern his job, but his health has also been affected. He’s had to miss work because the lack of sleep from noisy fraternity parties has left him too exhausted to safely perform his duties. That’s how serious this is. It has wrecked our lives. Since Fall 2021, I’ve sent you videos documenting violations and raging parties at known illegal fraternity houses in R1 and R2 zones. SLOPD cleared most as “negative violation” or “unable to locate.” I’ve invited you, the Council, to come see for yourselves. No one has taken me up on my invitation. But others did. A reporter from The Tribune came. The Tribune Editorial Board urged the City to act quickly and deemed the neighborhood “unlivable.” The Grand Jury also visited during a weekend and saw the mayhem firsthand. Their report concluded that the neighborhood is “almost unlivable for most residents.” The City’s response? “There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are 'almost unlivable'…” Up is down. When it comes to noise, I’ve sent you video after video of insanely loud fraternity parties. There are 40 illegal fraternity houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood, where there were only a few ten years ago. There are almost a dozen in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, where there were zero ten years ago. I’ve highlighted the addresses of noise complaints tied to these properties from SLOPD’s weekend logs. The Grand Jury’s finding of three citations per weekend in this small neighborhood was conservative. The City’s response? “There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years…” 165 Up is down. When the Grand Jury released its report, I felt a flicker of hope that finally, something might change. Instead, the City responded with a 27-page document full of denials, corrections, and deflections. Reading it made me physically ill. After a second and third reading, I felt embarrassed on the City’s behalf. Many of the corrections were trivial and did not address the core issue. The City doubled down and refused to accept responsibility. Up is down. Then, as the reality of the City’s indifference set in, my mother died. She was 21 years older than I am. It hit me: if my life follows the same path, I may only have 21 autumns left. Twenty-one Christmases. Twenty-one summers. Such limited chances to be present with my family, and I cannot afford to spend them in a place where Thursday through Sunday, peace is shattered and rest is impossible. How can I live in a neighborhood where I cannot actually live? So, with the help of our daughter and son-in-law, we made a heartbreaking, financially devastating decision. We bought a home in a quieter neighborhood near Sinsheimer Park. It will cost us thousands of dollars more per month and wipe out our savings. But we had no choice. We needed peace to survive. The City should have enforced its zoning laws, but it has not. Not a single fraternity has been shut down. It should have held Cal Poly’s fraternities accountable, but it hasn’t even obtained the addresses of illegal houses from Greek Life. You should have responded to residents pleading for help, but you did not. We were ignored, again and again, for years. Instead of taking responsibility, the City denied, deflected, and defended. It dismissed our lived experience. It rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. It turned its back on the truth. It is a disgrace. I can only hope that, moving forward, each of you, as elected representatives, will reflect on the choices that have led us here and commit to making better, braver decisions rooted in truth, transparency, and a genuine concern for the well-being of all residents. Do the right thing and hold Cal Poly accountable. The people of San Luis Obispo deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Alta Vista Resident, soon to be displaced from the home we love 166 From:Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 3:31 PM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:Delta Chi Cal Poly Chapter - Appeal Attachments:2025-07-11.Final Delta Chi Cal Poly Chapter - Appeal Support Info.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear Timmi, Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with the attached correspondence in support of the appeal. Please see the attached. I had an occasion to express our approach to the City Manager and look forward to working with her, you, your staff, Cal Poly, and my clients toward a resolution. Upon review of the attached, I would appreciate your thoughts. Perhaps, we can talk/meet soon. In the interim, have a lovely, long dog days of summer weekend. Yours, as always, C.M. Florence, AICP Principal Planner OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805.541.4509 I D: 805.548.1561 I M: 805.459.9972 www.oasisassoc.com 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc.com CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907 11 July 2025 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO c/o Ms. Timothea Tway, Community Development Director 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 via email - TTway@slocity.org RE: DELTA CHI CAL POLY CHAPTER, 1236 MONTE VISTA PLACE, SLO, CA APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION REVOCATION OF CUP U106-98 Dear Mayor and Council Members, We represent the Delta Chi Cal Poly Chapter (Delta Chi) who, on June, 20, 2025, lodged an appeal to set aside the Planning Commission’s June 11, 2025 decision to revoke their conditional use permit and to alternatively request that the permit to be amended to address community concerns. We appreciate the opportunity to provide a more robust discussion and relevant evidence to support the Council’s decision to uphold the appeal and enable the staff and the fraternity to work collaboratively to amend the conditional use permit. Thank you, in advance, for the consideration. Initially, there are a few high level ideas that we would like you to consider. 1. Partnership, not punishment. Delta Chi are partners in this community. The question isn’t whether there are problems, it’s whether they can be solved collaboratively. 2. Willingness to be accountable. Delta Chi does not want to avoid regulation. They do want clear, achievable, and enforceable conditions that ensure accountability, as they welcome the oversight. As importantly, Delta Chi currently works within their own defined governance framework.1 3. Track record of improvement. Delta Chi has worked systematically to reduce incidents. Over the past two years, documented violations have declined significantly, reflecting their commitment to improvements. While challenges remain, the trend is clear and positive. And finally, 4. S trong institutional support. Delta Chi is in active participation with Cal Poly’s Fraternity & Sorority Life/Leadership & Service/Student Affairs unit to ensure compliance with both the university 2 and City expectations. Context and Community Legacy San Luis Obispo is a proud and continually evolving town-and-gown community, home to decades of shared experiences between Cal Poly students and long-term residents. While these relationships have at times been challenging, they are also deeply rooted and resilient. Delta Chi has been a part 1 Attached is a list of additional reference materials that include descriptions of the local chapter bylaws, local property management, the alumni association, and national fraternity oversight. 2 Attached for ease of reference is the Cal Poly Fraternity & Sorority Life Event Registration Procedure, rev. March 25, 2025 which sets the framework for on and off campus events and is “designed to provide a safe social atmosphere for members of the Greek Community and their guests, while allowing them to exercise the personal responsibility expect of each of them”. OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 11 July 2025 DELTA CHI CAL POLY CHAPTER APPEAL Page 2 of 3 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc.com CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907 of this fabric for many years, and like many other fraternities and sororities, they operate off- campus due to the absence of a formal Greek Row. Over time, as both the university and the City have grown, the need for clear expectations, communication, and partnership has become increasingly vital. Good-Faith Reliance and Cooperative History Delta Chi has worked with City staff over the years to comply with permit conditions and to address neighborhood concerns in good faith. While they acknowledge there have been issues, particularly with occupancy and noise, they have also taken steps to respond to feedback and implement operational improvements. Delta Chi has relied on the City’s guidance, including direct communication and staff input, to understand expectations and make changes, accordingly. They have invested time and resources in mitigation measures, adjusted management practices, and have consistently sought to be a constructive member of the community. Notably, in this most recent CUP review, the City’s own staff report recommended amending the permit rather than revoking it, indicating a belief that continued operation under improved conditions is both possible and reasonable. Equity and Proportionality Revocation of the CUP at this stage, after years of interaction and reliance on City feedback, imposes a severe and, we believe, disproportionate penalty—particularly in light of staff’s recommendation for amendment. It also undermines the City’s stated goal of collaborative problem-solving with student organizations. While legal doctrines such as equitable estoppel may not strictly apply to municipal decisions, the underlying principles—fairness, reliance, and proportionality—are relevant here. Delta Chi acted in good faith based on the City’s past positions and now face significant hardship due to a sudden change in course. A Call for Constructive Resolution We are not asking the City Council to excuse past shortcomings. Instead, we are asking for a path forward that reflects the complexity of this issue and the opportunity for shared responsibility. The fraternity members, past and present, remain open and committed to working with City staff, neighbors, and university partners to strengthen permit conditions, improve accountability, and preserve Delta Chi’s place in the San Luis Obispo community. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Council: 1. Uphold this appeal; 2. Reverse the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke the CUP; and 3. Direct staff to pursue amendments to the permit in coordination with Delta Chi.3 We thank the Council for its consideration and for continuing to foster thoughtful dialogue between student organizations and the broader community. On behalf of Delta Chi, the fraternity members remain committed to being part of the solution. 3 The second attachment to this correspondence represents preliminary comments on staff’s previous recommendations to the Planning Commission to amend the original CUP. These are offered to correct the record and as a starting point to thoughtfully amend the permit in light of existing and potential future circumstances. OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 11 July 2025 DELTA CHI CAL POLY CHAPTER APPEAL Page 3 of 3 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f www.oasisassoc.com CP 018415 ● RLA 2248 ● CLARB 907 Respectfully submitted, OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. C.M. Florence, AICP Agent DELTA CHI CAL POLY CHAPTER Attachments – • 1 – List of Delta Chi Cal Poly Chapter’s Existing Internal Governance Framework • 2 – Event Registration Procedure, Cal Poly Fraternity & Sorority Life, March 2025 • 3 – Draft Comments to SLO Planning Commission Resolution no. XXX-25 cc: C. Green C. Nielsen E. Moffitt S. Pollock M. Holliday Delta Chi Members + Alumni 25-0053 ATTACHMENT 1 List of Delta Chi Cal Poly Chapter’s Existing Internal Governance Framework 11 July 2025 Local Chapter Bylaws and Governance The Cal Poly Chapter of Delta Chi operates under a formal set of local bylaws adopted by its membership. These bylaws govern the operations of the chapter, including leadership elections, financial procedures, conduct expectations, and adherence to university and national standards. They serve as a constitutionally binding document that ensures internal accountability, democratic leadership succession, and operational continuity from year to year. In addition, Delta Chi has adopted a Risk Management Plan that includes the following items: emergency contact list; event planning; harm reduction; code of conduct; crisis management; and fire safety. Local Housing Corporation Oversight Delta Chi’s physical property, located at 1236 Monte Vista Place, San Luis Obispo, CA, is managed by a dedicated local housing corporation. This entity, typically composed of alumni volunteers, is responsible for property maintenance, safety compliance, and financial oversight of the facility, in conjunction with our landlord. The housing corporation plays a critical role in ensuring that the chapter property is managed responsibly and that the property is safe and livable, in cooperation with the property owner, regardless of the changing undergraduate leadership. Active Alumni Association Involvement Delta Chi Cal Poly maintains an active alumni association that provides mentorship, guidance, and institutional memory. The alumni are deeply involved in supporting the chapter’s educational programs, leadership development, and operations, and frequently assist with transitional planning, risk management, and disciplinary concerns. This alumni network provides consistent intergenerational support and ensures continuity through leadership transitions. National Fraternity Oversight and Support As a chapter of the Delta Chi Fraternity, Inc., a nationally recognized fraternity established in 1890, the Cal Poly Chapter benefits from oversight and resources provided by the national headquarters. The national organization provides training, operational audits, risk management programs, leadership education, and crisis response protocols. They also ensure that all local chapters remain in good standing with respect to national policies and standards. In the event of a local leadership issue or disruption, the national fraternity has the capacity and authority to intervene and help restore structure and compliance. Revised March 2025 EVENT REGISTRATION PROCEDURE All members of Cal Poly-affiliated fraternities and sororities, and the Interfraternity Council, the Panhellenic Council, and the United Sorority & Fraternity Council at Cal Poly (collectively the “Fraternity and Sorority Community”), shall abide by all University policies and federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including those that govern the use, distribution, and consumption of alcohol. This Event Registration Procedure sets forth procedures designed to provide a safe social atmosphere for members of the Greek Community and their guests, while allowing them to exercise the personal responsibility expected of each of them. The following objectives are essential to achieving this aim: •To encourage social responsibility in all members, with emphasis on safety and risk management; •To encourage responsibility in the use of alcohol and thereby reduce the risks associated with alcohol misuse at parties; •To increase the safety of everyone in attendance at chapter -sponsored events with and without alcohol; •To support the ideals and values on which fraternities and sororities are founded; •To practice self-governance as a Fraternity and Sorority Life Community; •To educate the general membership of the Fraternity and Sorority Life community about the importance of risk management. 1 The University does not accept legal liability for the activities engaged in by fraternities and sororities, and their members. ATTACHMENT 2 Revised March 2025 Table of Contents Article I - What defines an event? Article II - Legal Article III - Events with Alcohol Present Article IV - Events without Alcohol Present Article V - Locations Article VI - Registration Process Article VII - Judicial Article VIII - Amnesty Article IX - Procedure Revision Revised March 2025 Article I - What defines an event? A. An “event” for the purposes of this document is any activity sponsored or endorsed by the organization/chapter including those that occur on and off chapter premises. Article II – Legal A. Any event as defined above must be compliant with all applicable laws, including but not limited to the below requirements: a. The organization, members and guests must comply with all federal, state, and local laws. No person under the legal drinking age my possess, consume, provide or be provided alcoholic beverages b. Organizations, members and guests must follow the federal law regarding illegal drugs and controlled substances. No persons may possess, use, provide, distribute, sell and or manufacture illegal drugs or other controlled substances while on organizational/ chapter premises or at any activity or event which is sponsored or endorsed by the chapter B. Laws local to San Luis Obispo are also enforced with events. The following is provided for convenience only and is not all-inclusive. Laws may change and it is up to the chapter to be aware of all applicable laws. Some relevant laws include: a. Noise Ordinance i. 7 A.M. to 10 P.M.: Noise that can be heard 50 feet from the source is a violation ii. 10 P.M. to 7 A.M.: Noise that can be heard across the property line is a violation b. Safety Enhancement Zones i. Fines are doubled for the following violations: 1. Noise 2. Unruly Gathering 3. Social Host Liability 4. Public Urination 5. Open Container ii. Designated times for Safety Enhancement Zones may vary, but typically occur during: 1. Mardi Gras (Thursday - Wednesday) 2. St. Patrick’s Day 3. Halloween Revised March 2025 4. “WOW’ Week Article III – Events with Alcohol Present A. Guest Lists and Sober Monitors a. Any event where alcohol is present is required to be a closed event, with guest lists submitted to the FSL office by the deadline (see Article VI) b. Attendance by non-members at any event where alcohol is present must be by invitation only by the organization. Chapters must utilize the guest list template provided by the FSL Office. Attendance at events where alcohol is present is limited to a guest-to-member ratio of 2:1 and must not exceed local fire or building code capacity of the organizational/chapter premises or host venue. c. Any event with alcohol present is also required to have sober monitors present, with quantity based on the number of guests in attendance. i. Three sober monitors (including one from the Executive committee or equivalent) are required at a minimum. ii. For every 40 guests invited to the event, another sober monitor will be required iii. First year members who have been in the chapter for at least one quarter and are initiated members, can serve as sober monitors if the following is in place: 1. Required attendance at one of the annual Social Risk Management workshops hosted the FSL office PRIOR to becoming eligible to serve as a sober monitor 2. Procedures in place attached to the risk management plan, that supports first year students during the event, should conflict arise 3. No more than 30 percent of sober monitors can be first year members B. Any event where alcohol is present can only occur from a. 5:00pm on Thursday until 1:00am on Friday, when Friday is an academic holiday b. 5:00pm on Friday until 1:00am on Saturday c. 9:00am on Saturday until 1:00am on Sunday d. 9:00am on Sunday until 1:00am on Monday, when Monday is an academic holiday C. Events with alcohol cannot occur until after the formal recruitment period is over (during quarters where there is a formal recruitment period) unless at a third - party venue and the event is closed with no potential new members in attendance and follows all event registration guidelines. D. Events with alcohol are prohibited from lasting longer than five hours continuously E. Sources of Alcohol a. Alcoholic beverages must either be: Revised March 2025 i. Provided and sold by a licensed and insured third-party vendor, e.g., restaurant, bar, caterer, etc.) or ii. Brought by the individual members and guests through a bring your own beverage system. b. Common sources of alcohol, including bulk quantities, which are not being served by a licensed and insured third-party vendor, are prohibited (i.e. amounts of alcohol greater than what a reasonable person should consume over the duration of the event) c. The presence of alcohol products above 15% alcohol by volume (ABV) is prohibited on any organizational/chapter premises or at any event, except when served at an event by a licensed and insured third party vendor. d. Alcoholic beverages must not be purchased with organizational/chapter funds or funds pooled by members or guests (e.g., admission fees, cover fees, collecting funds through digital apps, etc.) F. Bring Your Own Beverage a. Only those of legal drinking age in California may bring and consume alcohol b. Permitted alcohol can only be made available in central common living areas managed by sober monitors designated by the host chapter c. Individuals of legal drinking age may bring beer totaling no more than 72 ounces (equivalent to a six pack of 12 oz beers) or one bottle (750 ml) of wine to the event G. Drinking Games a. No shots, drinking games, or other activities that encourage inappropriate or other rapid consumption or high-risk drinking behaviors shall be allowed. i. The definition of drinking games includes but is not limited to the consumption of shots of alcohol, liquor or alcoholic beverages; the practice of consuming shots equating to one’s age;” beer pong,” “century club,” “beer die”,” dares;” or any other activity involving the consumption of alcohol which involves duress or encouragement related to the consumption of alcohol. H. Consent Talks a. All events with alcohol are required to have a Consent Talk after 30 minutes and no later than 1 hour of the event starting. The Consent Talk will be provided by the chapter’s Violence Prevention Chair (or a designated individual in the case that the Violence Prevention Chair isn’t present) and will be given to all participants at the event. If this is an exchange between two Revised March 2025 FSL organizations, both Violence Prevention Chairs should co-present the information. An example of the Consent Talk is below: “Hi everyone, my name is _____ and I am the Violence Prevention Chair for (insert chapter here). We want everyone to have a great time tonight and feel safe & respected! I am going to give a brief consent talk before we continue with the rest of the night! Remember: 1. Consent is freely given: consent can only be given without coercion, force, threats, or intimidation. It cannot be given by someone who is incapacitated, including due to drugs, alcohol, or medication. 2. Consent is reversible: you can change your mind about anything at any time during sex. 3. Consent is informed: you must know what you are consenting to in order to give consent. 4. Consent is enthusiastic: when it comes to sex you should want to have it. 5. Consent is specific: saying yes to one thing, like making out, does not mean saying yes to everything, like having sex. [Add in values of chapter here, e.g. “we are men /women of high integrity”] If you are interested in hooking up with someone tonight, check in with them and make sure to respect whatever answer they give you. If you see someone crossing a line, making others feel uncomfortable or someone in a vulnerable position, please come up t o me or [insert the name of Chapter President or Risk Manager, whoever is comfortable] if you need absolutely anything at all, we will be at the door (or wherever you stand)! Thank you and have fun!” I. Registration a. Events with alcohol are required to be registered with the FSL office prior to their occurrence and with documents submitted prior to the required deadlines (further outlined in Article VI) Article IV – Events without Alcohol Present A. Guest Lists and Sober Monitors a. Guest lists and sober monitors are not required for events where alcohol is not present, but are encouraged B. Registration Revised March 2025 a. Events without alcohol are required to be registered with the FSL office prior to their occurrence and with documents submitted prior to the required deadlines (further outlined in Article VI) Article V – Locations A. All off-campus events with alcohol must be held at a residence, including a chapter facility, or at a venue under third party management that is not legally associated with the chapter in any capacity (“third-party venue”). B. For all events with alcohol that are located at a third-party venue, a copy of the contract with the chapter and event management company or third -party venue must be submitted with the party registration. Article VI – Registration Process A. The process of online events with alcohol registration must begin at least 10 days before the date of the event. B. Deadlines for completion of registration are every Thursday by 12:00 pm, the weekend of the event. C. A final follow up guest list must be submitted by 12:00 noon Monday following the event with alcohol, with the full names of all attendees and birthdates of all guests who received wristbands for alcohol consumption. a. No future events with alcohol will be reviewed until this requirement is fulfilled D. The chapter’s risk manager must complete a post -event review, which is to be submitted to Cal Poly Fraternity and Sorority Life by 12:00 noon the Wednesday following the event with alcohol. All sober monitors and sober executive members will contribute to this review. For events with alcohol where there may be more than one chapter acting as the event host, each chapter must complete a post- event form. a. No future events with alcohol will be reviewed until this requirement is fulfilled E. Failure to follow these requirements may subject the chapter and/or its individual members to student discipline. Article VII – Judicial A. Failure to follow these procedures will be reviewed by the Office of Student Rights & Responsibilities (OSRR) and may be subject to sanctions. Revised March 2025 B. It is recognized that this procedure cannot address, in specific fashion, all possible social situations that may occur. When this procedure is not specific on a particular point, the Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic Council, and United Sorority & Fraternity Council chapters and their members are expected to conduct their events and themselves in the spirit of social responsibility expressed in this procedure. C. Council judicial boards can also adjudicate if deemed necessary by the OSRR. Article VIII – Amnesty A. The university’s primary concern is for the health, welfare, and safety of all students. As such, in cases of significant intoxication as a result of alcohol or other substances, the university encourages students to seek medical assistance for themselves and/or others. Any student who assists in seeking medical attention for a person in need will not be subject to disciplinary action for conduct in violation of this policy. Article IX – Procedure Revision A. This procedure may be revised at any time by the Fraternity & Sorority Life office, OSRR and Dean of Students. B. This procedure will be reviewed during summer quarter, or at the discretion of the Dean of Students staff, and any revisions will be sent to members of fraternities and sororities immediately and will be effective the first day of the following fall quarter. C. In the event of a mid-academic year review, any revisions will be sent to members of fraternities and sororities immediately upon implementation. ATTACHMENT 3 DRAFT Comments to SLO Planning Commission Resolution No. XXX-25 Amending CUP 5230-98 – Proposed Conditions of Approval (USE-0332-2025) 11 July 2025 The following are a few of the Community Development Department staff proposed conditions of approval, along with our comments, offered as examples of areas that warrant additional consideration and collaboration between the Delta Chi fraternity and the City of San Luis Obispo. We recognize that there may at times be differences of opinion regarding the best way to address certain issues, but there remains a shared goal and objective: to craft clear, reasonable, and enforceable conditions that support the fraternity’s continued operation in a manner that is safe, responsible, and compatible with the surrounding community. Through thoughtful dialogue and partnership, we believe these conditions can be refined to achieve that balance. C ondition of Approval 2. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as soon as practical if conduct on the permitted premises results in three (3) citations within any 12-month period for a violation of law or permit condition that (a) are not contested or are upheld on appeal, and (b) the conduct for which the citations were issued resulted in adverse impacts to, or complaints from, residents or occupants of the surrounding neighborhood. At the time of the Conditional Use Permit review, to ensure ongoing compatibility with nearby uses, conditions of approval may be added, modified, and/or removed, or the Conditional Use Permit may be revoked. The City shall notify Cal Poly if the Use Permit is revoked. A re-review by the Planning Commission shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee. COMMENT: (a clarification for the record) Delta Chi had received three (3) "violations" in the past twelve 12 months, although one was successfully appealed by the time of the May 28, 2025 Planning Commission hearing. This is an important clarification, as the condition of approval wording clearly states that the permit can be up for review if three (3) (emphasis added) citations are received within a twelve (12) months period and (again, emphasis added) the conduct for which the citations were issued resulted in adverse impacts to, or complaints from, residents or occupants of the surrounding neighborhood. While nuanced, this distinction may have prevented the Planning Commission’s revocation decision. C onditional of Approval 4. Routine meetings and gatherings for the fraternity shall be limited to a maximum of 54 people (rounded down from 54.45 = 36.3 people x 1.5), except as otherwise approved by the Community Development Director for special events. If the fraternity hosts special events involving more than 54 people, a transportation management plan to reduce impacts to the surrounding neighborhood shall be submitted to the Community Development Department, at least 30 days prior to the event taking place, for review and approval. No exception from the Noise Ordinance shall be approved by the Director as Part of the special event. Presence of more than 54 people at the property without valid approval from the Community Development Director shall be considered a violation of this Conditional Use Permit. COMMENT: We believe that the focus should not be on the quantity of the people on the property, but on the impact of the gathering on the community, as regulated by objective standards, such as MC Title 9 Chapter 9.12 Noise Control, Chapter 9.13 Unruly gatherings, and Chapter 9.22 Safety Enhancement Zones. Attachment 3 Page 2 of 2 Interestingly, we agree with the City’s response to the recent Grand Jury report regarding standard conditions, "Setting constraints like a uniform set of conditions on the exercise of discretion diminishes the usefulness of the review process to address specific needs over time or for unique circumstances that may exist at specific properties or with particular groups or organizations." Creating a CUP with a custom set of conditions of approval for each fraternity would recognize the differences in the size of the property, number of building occupants allowed, number of parking spaces, and even its location, such as the proximity to Cal Poly. Currently, the one-size-fits-all calculation takes none of the aforementioned into consideration. An example of the need for more customized conditions of approval is found in the revised COA no. 4, that limits the maximum number of residents to thirty five (35) people living on the property, while limiting the maximum number of routine meetings and gatherings to 1.5 times the number of residents or fifty-four (54) people. This is unrealistic and flawed, as there is no consideration of the very site and fraternity specific aspects. For the sake of comparison, and to underscore the need to eliminate the “one size fits all” CUP conditions of approval, the 1.5 formula has been used for other fraternity CUPs, e.g., 2024 Lamda Chi and the 2021 Delta Gamma. Unfortunately, the calculation does not factor in the number of residents, interior building square footage (SF), parking and alternative modes of transportation, both on- and off-site. For example, • Delta Chi accommodates 370 SF per resident, which is higher ratio than Lambda Chi's 240 SF per resident. • Delta Chi has far more residents than Delta Gamma – where they have six (6) residents Delta Chi has thirty five (35) residents. • The Alpha Gamma Delta 2016 CUP was calculated at 2.1 times their residents. • Delta Chi maintains thirty two (32) parking spaces, a fair amount greater than other fraternities, and because of the proximity to the Cal Poly campus, there is no less than forty (40) additional and available parking spaces on campus within 200 feet of the Delta Chi property. In closing, it is essential to move beyond a “one size fits all” approach to fraternity conditional use permit conditions of approval and instead adopt a framework that is tailored to the specific circumstances of each house and organization. This does not diminish the City’s discretionary authority over permit review and approval; rather, it acknowledges that each fraternity operates within its own context, with unique physical constraints, membership structures, and operational goals. By crafting site- and fraternity-specific conditions, the City can more effectively ensure lasting compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, encourage accountability, and support solutions that are practical, enforceable, and responsive to genuine community concerns. 167 From:Patino, Mallory Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 3:30 PM To: Subject:RE: Special Event Notification - Lambda Chi Alpha, 10/29/2025 Hi Matthew, Any special events you would like to host that requires approval by the Community Development Director per Conditional No. 5 of your CUP will require an intermittent or temporary use permit. A temporary use permit would be for a singular temporary event, whereas the intermittent use permit would cover reoccurring events (i.e., annually, quarterly, etc.). The intermittent or temporary use permits are processed as Director’s Actions applications. The fee for Director’s Action is currently $3,051.99 (City Fee Schedule FY 25-26). However, if the event is for philanthropy efforts, we have a Non-profit Special Event Fee of $212.28. Given you stated the haunted house event will be a fundraiser, I’m guessing it’s a philanthropy event and may be able to be processed with the non-profit event fee. All Director’s Action applications require: 1. A Planning Application (Planning App Form), 2. A project description (including details about the type of event, timing, attendance estimates, security plans, food and drinks, etc.). a. If you are hoping to have the event intermittently, please include details in the description about that intention and estimates for reoccurrence timing. 3. Site plan (including details about parking, bathrooms, food and drink areas, etc.). If you’re requesting to file under the non-profit fee, you’d likely need to provide proof of your 501(c)(3) status and the project description should include information about the non-profit benefactor. A Director’s Action application is processed at the staff level and requires us to provide public notice (legal ads and site poster) but does not include a public hearing. The general timeline for processing a Director’s Action is 6-10 weeks. This means you’ll want to submit all the materials to apply for the haunted house by mid-September at the latest. As for a Transportation Management Plan, please coordinate with Adam Fukushima (afukushi@slocity.org) on what should be included and if he has examples for you to reference. I’ve given him a heads up that you’ll be contacting him! You will likely want to include the transportation management plan with the Director’s Action submittal, as they require the minimum 30-days review anyway. From a longer-term event planning perspective, you can file for an intermittent use permit that is more general and might encapsulate regularly scheduled events without having fully fleshed out details. If you want to chat more about this, let me know, as I think a call or in-person meeting would be the best way to provide you more details about this process. Let me know if you have any questions! Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org 168 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Matthew < Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 6:41 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Special Event Notification - Lambda Chi Alpha, 10/29/2025 Hi Mallory, Thank you for the response. We’re aware of the outstanding invoice and are working on getting it resolved. In the meantime, we’d like to get started on the event application process so we don't fall behind any deadlines, if that’s allowed. Please let me know if we can begin preparing or submitting materials while we work on settling the fees. I'll be on the lookout for your follow-up with more details. Best, Matthew On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 9:57 AM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Matthew, Thank you for reaching out. You will need to submit an application for the event review, but I will follow up with a more detailed response on that process and associated fees in the next week. However, in beginning looking into your request, I was notified of your outstanding invoice. The Community Development Department is still waiting on completion fees from your organization from the processing of your original use permit application (USE-0331-2023). I have attached a copy of the invoice here for your reference (Invoice # 00037373). I believe you’ve coordinated with Hannah Hanh about these fees most recently. You will need to pay the completion fees before we are able to process or review a request for a special event. Let me know if you have any questions. I’ll be in touch soon. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 169 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Matthew < Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:25 PM To: Planning <planning@slocity.org> Cc: Subject: Special Event Notification - Lambda Chi Alpha, 10/29/2025 Dear San Luis Obispo Planning Committee, My name is Matthew Gnos, and I am a representative of the Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity, located at 1264 East Foothill Blvd. We are planning to host a haunted house fundraiser at our chapter house, 1264 East Foothill Blvd, on 10/29/2025 from 8 pm to 11 pm. We expect more than 48 attendees and are therefore submitting this notice per our Conditional Use Permit. We will be preparing a written notice for neighbors within 300 feet, and we are committed to complying with all relevant conditions, including the requirement for a Transportation Management Plan. To ensure we meet the city’s expectations, would you be able to provide us with a draft or template of an acceptable Transportation Management Plan for an event of this nature? We would appreciate any guidance or examples you can share. I have also CC’d Blake Brennan, our Vice President, who is leading the planning for this event. Please let us know if you require any additional documentation or clarification. We look forward to your review and approval. Best, Matthew Gnos LCA Risk Manager 170 From:kathie walker < Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 3:17 PM To:Marx, Jan; Stewart, Erica A; Shoresman, Michelle; Boswell, Mike; Francis, Emily Subject:Do Not Allow City's Misinformation Drive Responses to Grand Jury Dear City Councilmembers, My mom died two weeks ago, on June 28, 2025, after a devastating battle with brain cancer. Sadly, she was drawn into far-right politics and firmly believed Ivermectin would cure her disease. Despite efforts from family members, she rejected all other treatments. Misinformation stole her chance at life. I am shaken by her loss and furious that she was misled by voices who value ideology over truth. We are living through terrifying times, when politicians claim “up is down” and too many people believe them, even when reality says otherwise. Most days, I can’t even turn on the television. The news feels surreal. I fear for our collective future. In the midst of all this uncertainty, I long for something stable and familiar. I wish I could rely on the comfort of living peacefully in San Luis Obispo, where my mom, her mom, and my own children and grandchildren have lived. I wish I could believe in a hometown where City leadership and elected officials uphold truth, transparency, and integrity. But I don’t. For nearly two decades, my family has lived in the Alta Vista neighborhood, which is now overrun by illegal fraternity houses that have shattered our peace and impacted our health. This is not about noisy student parties. These are full-scale fraternity operations - dozens of them - with waves of screaming partiers parading from house to house on weekends. What we witness from our front yard would shock most people. No one in a residential neighborhood should have to live through the chaos we’ve endured. This has taken a toll on our health. I now receive medical treatment for anxiety, and my dentist recently said I’ve started grinding my teeth at night, which has damaged them. My husband, Steve, cannot take medications because FAA regulations govern his job, but his health has also been affected. He’s had to miss work because the lack of sleep from noisy fraternity parties has left him too exhausted to safely perform his duties. That’s how serious this is. It has wrecked our lives. Since Fall 2021, I’ve sent you videos documenting violations and raging parties at known illegal fraternity houses in R1 and R2 zones. SLOPD cleared most as “negative violation” or “unable to locate.” I’ve invited you, the Council, to come see for yourselves. No one has taken me up on my invitation. But others did. A reporter from The Tribune came. The Tribune Editorial Board urged the City to act quickly and deemed the neighborhood “unlivable.” The Grand Jury also visited during a weekend and saw the mayhem firsthand. Their report concluded that the neighborhood is “almost unlivable for most residents.” The City’s response? “There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are 'almost unlivable'…” Up is down. 171 When it comes to noise, I’ve sent you video after video of insanely loud fraternity parties. There are 40 illegal fraternity houses in our Alta Vista neighborhood, where there were only a few ten years ago. There are almost a dozen in the Monterey Heights neighborhood, where there were zero ten years ago. I’ve highlighted the addresses of noise complaints tied to these properties from SLOPD’s weekend logs. The Grand Jury’s finding of three citations per weekend in this small neighborhood was conservative. The City’s response? “There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years…” Up is down. When the Grand Jury released its report, I felt a flicker of hope that finally, something might change. Instead, the City responded with a 27-page document full of denials, corrections, and deflections. Reading it made me physically ill. After a second and third reading, I felt embarrassed on the City’s behalf. Many of the corrections were trivial and did not address the core issue. The City doubled down and refused to accept responsibility. Up is down. Then, as the reality of the City’s indifference set in, my mother died. She was 21 years older than I am. It hit me: if my life follows the same path, I may only have 21 autumns left. Twenty-one Christmases. Twenty-one summers. Such limited chances to be present with my family, and I cannot afford to spend them in a place where Thursday through Sunday, peace is shattered and rest is impossible. How can I live in a neighborhood where I cannot actually live? So, with the help of our daughter and son-in-law, we made a heartbreaking, financially devastating decision. We bought a home in a quieter neighborhood near Sinsheimer Park. It will cost us thousands of dollars more per month and wipe out our savings. But we had no choice. We needed peace to survive. The City should have enforced its zoning laws, but it has not. Not a single fraternity has been shut down. It should have held Cal Poly’s fraternities accountable, but it hasn’t even obtained the addresses of illegal houses from Greek Life. You should have responded to residents pleading for help, but you did not. We were ignored, again and again, for years. Instead of taking responsibility, the City denied, deflected, and defended. It dismissed our lived experience. It rejected the Grand Jury’s findings. It turned its back on the truth. It is a disgrace. I can only hope that, moving forward, each of you, as elected representatives, will reflect on the choices that have led us here and commit to making better, braver decisions rooted in truth, transparency, and a genuine concern for the well-being of all residents. Do the right thing and hold Cal Poly accountable. The people of San Luis Obispo deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Kathie Walker Alta Vista Resident, soon to be displaced from the home we love 172 From:Clint Oram < Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 2:22 PM To:Patino, Mallory Cc:Terry Reeves Subject:Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory, Document received. Regards, Clint On Jul 11, 2025, at 11:15 AM, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Clint, Thank you for following up regarding the closure of the appeal period. As you continue to work with the organization and determine your next steps for pursuing a CUP again, feel free to reach out to me with any questions. I have attached here the final signed copy of the resolution, Reso No. PC-1106-25. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Clint Oram < Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 3:55 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> 173 Cc: Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory, Thanks for your time earlier today. We very much appreciate it. We have decided to NOT pursue an appeal but rather focus our efforts on working with the undergraduate chapter to ensure we do not have these noise issues in the future. Our thanks to you and your colleagues for standing by to working with us on a remote application. We will be in touch. Best regards, Clint From: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Date: Monday, July 7, 2025 at 11:07 AM To: Cc: Terry Reeves < Subject: RE: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Clint, below are answers (in purple) to your questions. I look forward to chatting more today so that I can expand/explain a bit more. We understand today is the last day to submit an appeal. In your email below, you had written that if we want to submit an appeal remotely that we can email you the form and pay over the phone. Please confirm that is possible today. Yes, today is the last to file the appeal. You would need to call to pay the appeal fee with the Finance Department first. Let me know if you decide to appeal and I will connect you with the Finance team via email regarding the phone payment. Then you would need to submit the Appeal Form and any additional appeal materials to the City Clerk’s Office with the receipt that you paid the appeal fee. The City Clerk’s email is cityclerk@slocity.org; you can include or CC me on the submittal. You would need to have this complete before 5pm today. We would also like to understand better what happens if we do or do not appeal. Some questions we have: 1/ If we do appeal: 1.1/ when would this be brought before the city council? The hearing date would not be set until an appeal is filed. An appeal likely would not be heard by City Council until this fall, or later. 1.2/ during the appeal process, would we be required to comply with whatever steps are necessary when the use permit is withdrawn? If you file an appeal, the CUP would continue (because a final decision will have not been made due to the appeal being submitted). 1.3/ what guidance can you give us to be best prepared during the appeal process? The appeal process would be you preparing for your hearing with City Council. Planning staff will prepare a response/staff report based on what the appeal filing includes. 2/ If we do not appeal: 2.1/ what are those steps we would be required to take to comply with the revocation of the use permit? With the revocation of the use permit, the site is no longer permitted to operate as a fraternity organization, effective upon adoption of the Resolution (6/25/25). The site may be able to continue residential land uses, as allowed in the R-4 zone under the Municipal Code. 2.2/ what is the timeline for those steps? The Resolution is effective immediately upon being adopted (6/25/25). 174 Also, please send us the final copy of the resolution passed by the planning commission to revoke the use permit. The Resolution is undergoing final processing (signatures and publishing) this morning. I will have the final copy to you shortly. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Clint Oram < Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 9:33 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory, My name is Clint Oram and I am with Terry Reeves and the Alpha Upsilon Delta Upsilon Alumni Corporation, the landlords of 720 Foothill Blvd. At this stage, we are looking to gather as much information as possible. We have been reviewing the use permit revocation and trying to understand what next steps we have available to us. We understand today is the last day to submit an appeal. In your email below, you had written that if we want to submit an appeal remotely that we can email you the form and pay over the phone. Please confirm that is possible today. We would also like to understand better what happens if we do or do not appeal. Some questions we have: 1/ If we do appeal: 1.1/ when would this be brought before the city council? 1.2/ during the appeal process, would we be required to comply with whatever steps are necessary when the use permit is withdrawn? 1.3/ what guidance can you give us to be best prepared during the appeal process? 175 2/ If we do not appeal: 2.1/ what are those steps we would be required to take to comply with the revocation of the use permit? 2.2/ what is the timeline for those steps? Also, please send us the final copy of the resolution passed by the planning commission to revoke the use permit. Are you available for a call today to review these questions? Regards, Clint Oram On Tuesday, July 1, 2025 at 04:31:35 PM PDT, Terry Reeves <reevest81@gmail.com> wrote: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Date: Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 3:43 PM Subject: RE: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill To: Terry Reeves < Cc: Juan Fernandez < , John Hatfield < , Wade Spriggs < Hi Terry, My apologies on the delay in reaching out to you! I was actually just working on this draft to reach out to you when I got your email. Last week on June 25, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution revoking the Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity (Delta Upsilon) at 720 Foothill. We are processing the final resolution, and I will send on a copy once signed. There will be no changes to the content from the draft version that was published with the agenda. This resolution (decision) may be appealed to the City Council. To appeal, you must complete and file the Appeal to the City Council form with the City Clerk’s Office within 10 calendar days of this rendered decision (by end of business day, Monday July 7, since day 10 is on a weekend). The required filing fee ($2,662.26) must accompany the appeal form. You can pay the appeal fee at the Finance Counter, which is temporarily located at 919 Palm Street, in person from Monday-Thursday, 8am-4pm. If you need to pay over the phone, you can let me know and I’ll coordinate phone payment. 176 Information about the appeal procedures is on the City's Website here (refer to the ‘Appeal to the City Council’ section). If you would like to pursue applying for a new Conditional Use Permit, I have attached here the application checklist of items required to apply (note: physical copies of plans are no longer required). You can apply via email by submitting the application materials to planning@slocity.org. Upon submittal of an application, Planning staff would set up an application and send you an invoice for the required application filing fee ($11,260.55). The invoice would be sent with instructions on how to pay online. If you preferred to apply and pay in person, let me know and I can provide details for days and times when our Planning counter is open to the public. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 3:41 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. 177 The outcome was totally expected, but disappointing all the same. Can you help us understand our appeal options? Thanks. On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 5:20 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry, The Planning Commission Staff Report and associated attachments are now published and accessible online. You can download the pdfs here: https://pub- slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=0d341b53-47b3-4741-9491- b900ccf4c5d9&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English. I will be out of the office the rest of this week, but be back working on Monday afternoon. If you have any questions you’d like answers on before next week, please reach out to Rachel Cohen at rcohen@slocity.org. Otherwise, let me know if you have any questions or concerns before Wednesday morning. If you have a presentation you’d like to present, please send it to me before 3pm on Wednesday. You may submit agenda correspondence up until 3pm on Wednesday, see the City’s website for how to comment here: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and- minutes/planning-commission. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 178 From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:26 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. Thank you for the chat as well. It's fine to list me as the representative. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 3:16 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry and Juan, Thanks for the chat earlier today. I wanted to let you know I found the Draft Resolutions that are going on consent to Planning Commission tomorrow night for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s revocations. You can access the drafts by clicking the paper clip icons on the item here: https://pub- slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=711b6ba9-e00c-4566-ab59- 02a00d530d05&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=10&Tab=attachments . The language for my draft resolution will be similar to these, and if edits are made tomorrow night, my draft will likely reflect the final adopted Resolutions. One question regarding your review (USE-0334-2025), and sorry if you answered this already and I missed it – Would you like me to list Terry Reeves (Alumni Corporation President) as the representative on the agenda staff report? Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org 179 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez <jjfernan@mac.com> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:10 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill That would be perfect- thanks! Thanks, /juan On Jun 5, 2025, at 14:08, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, We prefer to use our City Teams meetings. I can send you the link shortly. Would you like me to invite everyone who is on this email thread? Thanks, 180 Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006 .png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez <jjfernan@mac.com> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:06 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Invite sent for Tuesday at 11am. Do you prefer to send a SLO City Zoom or shall I set it up? Thanks, /juan On Jun 5, 2025, at 13:58, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, I am available for a call or video meeting next Tuesday from 8:30am-2pm, or Wednesday from 8:30am-1 pm. Let me know if there is a time during those windows that would work for you. 181 Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005. png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications From: Juan Fernandez <jjfernan@mac.com> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 1:56 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory- Thank you for your proactive note with links. Can we schedule a debrief with you for early next week to discuss our June 25 CUP? I’ve viewed some of the video of the May 28 hearing and it would be good to get your input as we prepare our presentation to the Planning Commission. Can you please suggest a few times next week that we can meet? /juan On Jun 3, 2025, at 16:29, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: 182 Hi John and Wade, I wanted to touch base on a few things regarding the upcoming USE-0334-2025 Planning Commission (PC) hearing. 1. As the applicant, you will be allowed to speak for 10 minutes during the PC meeting on 6/25. Please let me now if you would like to utilize this speaking window, and if yes, who the speaker will be. 2. Who would you like me to list as the applicant representative? Previous fraternities have generally listed the sitting chapter president, but it’s up to you if you would like an alumni member, or if you’d like multiple names included. 3. The PC hearings for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s CUP re-reviews were held on 5/28. Though staff presented a recommendation to modify the CUP with revised conditions of approval, the Commission decided to revoke both fraternity’s use permits. The Resolution will not be adopted until the 6/11 PC meeting since staff did not prepare a draft Resolution for revocation ahead of the PC meeting. 1. Based on this outcome straying from the other two more recent reviews (from late 2024), I will not be making a recommendation on behalf of staff for modification or revocation of the CUP for your re- review. I am still drafting the staff report, but it will present the project facts and list the alternatives PC may choose, which are 1. Modification of use permit with updated conditions of approval, 2. Revocation of use permit, or 3. Continuance of review to future PC meeting date. I will have two draft 183 Resolutions ready as attachments to my staff report, one for modification and one for revocation, in hopes that, based on their decision, PC will be able to adopt the Resolution the same night of the hearing. 2. If you interested in reviewing the 5/28 PC meeting, the agenda, staff report, and minutes (no resolution yet though) can be found in these archives:https://opengov.sl ocity.org/WebLink/Browse. aspx?id=26297&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk. 3. You can watch the entirety of the 5/28 PC meeting here:https://www.youtube.c om/live/avwDfoK3syU?si=0 HUh_66DQiJAKQpp. From around 7 minutes to 1 hour, 45 minutes relates to the fraternity CUP re- reviews. If you have any questions about the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting, or your upcoming hearing, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401- 3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004. png><image005.png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Hatfield < Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 9:24 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Wade Spriggs 184 < Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill +Terry Reeves, incoming Alumni Corporation President Mallory, appreciate you sending this all over. It is very helpful. We were all finally able to line up our schedules and 6/25 works best for us. If we can put that date on the books, we'd appreciate it. Looking forward to being in SLO next month. Thank you, John Hatfield On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 10:31 AM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Wade, My apologies for the delay in following up after our meeting. I set up the application for the re-review of your existing Conditional Use Permit to have a fraternity house at 720 Foothill (new application number: USE-0334-2025). I have attached here a copy of your current use permit, which will be modified/updated through this re-review process. As I mentioned I would provide, below are links to two different fraternity use 185 permit reviews that were recently processed. 1. Alpha Epsilon Pi, re-review of existing use permit 1. Staff Report for Planning Commission (PC) Meeting, agenda item 4a for re-review of existing use permit: https://opengov.slo city.org/WebLink/DocView .aspx?id=201304&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk 2. PC Resolution, approval of modifications to existing use permit:https://opengov.slo city.org/WebLink/DocView .aspx?id=202053&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk 1. Lambda Chi Alpha, review of new use permit 1. Staff Report for PC Meeting, agenda item 4a for new use permit application:https://opengo v.slocity.org/WebLink/Bro wse.aspx?id=194681&dbi d=0&repo=CityClerk 2. PC Resolution, approval of use permit: https://opengov.slo city.org/WebLink/DocView .aspx?id=195337&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk 3. Staff Report for City Council (CC) Meeting, agenda item 6b for appeal of PC use permit approval: https://opengov. slocity.org/WebLink/DocVi ew.aspx?id=200405&dbid =0&repo=CityClerk 4. CC Resolution, upholding PC approval of use permit:https://opengov.slo city.org/WebLink/DocView .aspx?id=200865&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk 5. Appellant presentation available in the CC 10-15- 24 agenda folder: https://opengov.slo city.org/WebLink/browse.a spx?id=200395&dbid=0&r epo=CityClerk 186 The updates we will be recommending to the Planning Commission will be very similar to what was approved for AEPi and Lambda. I am moving forward with re-reviewing two other fraternity use permits at the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting. We discussed the possibility of reviewing your use permit at the same time as the others on 5/28, or by itself at the 6/11 Planning Commission meeting. If neither of those options work, 6/25 would be the next available date. Please let me know which review date would be best for you. If you would like to make it on the 5/28 meeting agenda, I would need to know asap. I will have a draft of the staff report and proposed resolution available for your review at least one week ahead of whichever date we schedule for the PC meeting. I may be in touch in the next few weeks if I have any questions while working on the staff report and resolution recommendation. Let me know if you have any questions for me! Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004 .png><image005.png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 187 -- John Hatfield ( -- Terry -- Terry -- Terry <Resolution No. PC-1106-25 (USE-0334-2025).pdf> 188 From:Patino, Mallory Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 11:15 AM To:Clint Oram Cc:Terry Reeves Subject:RE: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Attachments:Resolution No. PC-1106-25 (USE-0334-2025).pdf Hi Clint, Thank you for following up regarding the closure of the appeal period. As you continue to work with the organization and determine your next steps for pursuing a CUP again, feel free to reach out to me with any questions. I have attached here the final signed copy of the resolution, Reso No. PC-1106-25. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Clint Oram < Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 3:55 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory, Thanks for your time earlier today. We very much appreciate it. We have decided to NOT pursue an appeal but rather focus our efforts on working with the undergraduate chapter to ensure we do not have these noise issues in the future. Our thanks to you and your colleagues for standing by to working with us on a remote application. We will be in touch. Best regards, Clint From: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Date: Monday, July 7, 2025 at 11:07 AM To: 189 Cc: Terry Reeves < Subject: RE: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Clint, below are answers (in purple) to your questions. I look forward to chatting more today so that I can expand/explain a bit more. We understand today is the last day to submit an appeal. In your email below, you had written that if we want to submit an appeal remotely that we can email you the form and pay over the phone. Please confirm that is possible today. Yes, today is the last to file the appeal. You would need to call to pay the appeal fee with the Finance Department first. Let me know if you decide to appeal and I will connect you with the Finance team via email regarding the phone payment. Then you would need to submit the Appeal Form and any additional appeal materials to the City Clerk’s Office with the receipt that you paid the appeal fee. The City Clerk’s email is cityclerk@slocity.org; you can include or CC me on the submittal. You would need to have this complete before 5pm today. We would also like to understand better what happens if we do or do not appeal. Some questions we have: 1/ If we do appeal: 1.1/ when would this be brought before the city council? The hearing date would not be set until an appeal is filed. An appeal likely would not be heard by City Council until this fall, or later. 1.2/ during the appeal process, would we be required to comply with whatever steps are necessary when the use permit is withdrawn? If you file an appeal, the CUP would continue (because a final decision will have not been made due to the appeal being submitted). 1.3/ what guidance can you give us to be best prepared during the appeal process? The appeal process would be you preparing for your hearing with City Council. Planning staff will prepare a response/staff report based on what the appeal filing includes. 2/ If we do not appeal: 2.1/ what are those steps we would be required to take to comply with the revocation of the use permit? With the revocation of the use permit, the site is no longer permitted to operate as a fraternity organization, effective upon adoption of the Resolution (6/25/25). The site may be able to continue residential land uses, as allowed in the R-4 zone under the Municipal Code. 2.2/ what is the timeline for those steps? The Resolution is effective immediately upon being adopted (6/25/25). Also, please send us the final copy of the resolution passed by the planning commission to revoke the use permit. The Resolution is undergoing final processing (signatures and publishing) this morning. I will have the final copy to you shortly. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 190 From: Clint Oram < Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 9:33 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory, My name is Clint Oram and I am with Terry Reeves and the Alpha Upsilon Delta Upsilon Alumni Corporation, the landlords of 720 Foothill Blvd. At this stage, we are looking to gather as much information as possible. We have been reviewing the use permit revocation and trying to understand what next steps we have available to us. We understand today is the last day to submit an appeal. In your email below, you had written that if we want to submit an appeal remotely that we can email you the form and pay over the phone. Please confirm that is possible today. We would also like to understand better what happens if we do or do not appeal. Some questions we have: 1/ If we do appeal: 1.1/ when would this be brought before the city council? 1.2/ during the appeal process, would we be required to comply with whatever steps are necessary when the use permit is withdrawn? 1.3/ what guidance can you give us to be best prepared during the appeal process? 2/ If we do not appeal: 2.1/ what are those steps we would be required to take to comply with the revocation of the use permit? 2.2/ what is the timeline for those steps? Also, please send us the final copy of the resolution passed by the planning commission to revoke the use permit. Are you available for a call today to review these questions? Regards, Clint Oram On Tuesday, July 1, 2025 at 04:31:35 PM PDT, Terry Reeves < wrote: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Date: Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 3:43 PM Subject: RE: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill To: Terry Reeves < Cc: Juan Fernandez < , John Hatfield < , Wade Spriggs < 191 Hi Terry, My apologies on the delay in reaching out to you! I was actually just working on this draft to reach out to you when I got your email. Last week on June 25, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution revoking the Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity (Delta Upsilon) at 720 Foothill. We are processing the final resolution, and I will send on a copy once signed. There will be no changes to the content from the draft version that was published with the agenda. This resolution (decision) may be appealed to the City Council. To appeal, you must complete and file the Appeal to the City Council form with the City Clerk’s Office within 10 calendar days of this rendered decision (by end of business day, Monday July 7, since day 10 is on a weekend). The required filing fee ($2,662.26) must accompany the appeal form. You can pay the appeal fee at the Finance Counter, which is temporarily located at 919 Palm Street, in person from Monday-Thursday, 8am-4pm. If you need to pay over the phone, you can let me know and I’ll coordinate phone payment. Information about the appeal procedures is on the City's Website here (refer to the ‘Appeal to the City Council’ section). If you would like to pursue applying for a new Conditional Use Permit, I have attached here the application checklist of items required to apply (note: physical copies of plans are no longer required). You can apply via email by submitting the application materials to planning@slocity.org. Upon submittal of an application, Planning staff would set up an application and send you an invoice for the required application filing fee ($11,260.55). The invoice would be sent with instructions on how to pay online. If you preferred to apply and pay in person, let me know and I can provide details for days and times when our Planning counter is open to the public. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org 192 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 3:41 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. The outcome was totally expected, but disappointing all the same. Can you help us understand our appeal options? Thanks. On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 5:20 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry, The Planning Commission Staff Report and associated attachments are now published and accessible online. You can download the pdfs here: https://pub- slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=0d341b53-47b3-4741-9491- b900ccf4c5d9&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English. I will be out of the office the rest of this week, but be back working on Monday afternoon. If you have any questions you’d like answers on before next week, please reach out to Rachel Cohen at rcohen@slocity.org. Otherwise, let me know if you have any questions or concerns before Wednesday morning. If you have a presentation you’d like to present, please send it to me before 3pm on Wednesday. You may submit agenda correspondence up until 3pm on Wednesday, see the City’s website for how to comment here: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and- minutes/planning-commission. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner 193 Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:26 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. Thank you for the chat as well. It's fine to list me as the representative. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 3:16 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry and Juan, Thanks for the chat earlier today. I wanted to let you know I found the Draft Resolutions that are going on consent to Planning Commission tomorrow night for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s revocations. You can access the drafts by clicking the paper clip icons on the item here: https://pub- slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=711b6ba9-e00c-4566-ab59- 02a00d530d05&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=10&Tab=attachments . The language for my draft resolution will be similar to these, and if edits are made tomorrow night, my draft will likely reflect the final adopted Resolutions. One question regarding your review (USE-0334-2025), and sorry if you answered this already and I missed it – Would you like me to list Terry Reeves (Alumni Corporation President) as the representative on the agenda staff report? Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner 194 Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:10 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill That would be perfect- thanks! Thanks, /juan On Jun 5, 2025, at 14:08, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, We prefer to use our City Teams meetings. I can send you the link shortly. Would you like me to invite everyone who is on this email thread? Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner 195 <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:06 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Invite sent for Tuesday at 11am. Do you prefer to send a SLO City Zoom or shall I set it up? Thanks, /juan On Jun 5, 2025, at 13:58, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, I am available for a call or video meeting next Tuesday from 8:30am- 2pm, or Wednesday from 8:30am-1 pm. Let me know if there is a time during those windows that would work for you. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> 196 Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006 .png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 1:56 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory- Thank you for your proactive note with links. Can we schedule a debrief with you for early next week to discuss our June 25 CUP? I’ve viewed some of the video of the May 28 hearing and it would be good to get your input as we prepare our presentation to the Planning Commission. Can you please suggest a few times next week that we can meet? /juan On Jun 3, 2025, at 16:29, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John and Wade, I wanted to touch base on a few things regarding the upcoming USE-0334-2025 Planning Commission (PC) hearing. 197 1. As the applicant, you will be allowed to speak for 10 minutes during the PC meeting on 6/25. Please let me now if you would like to utilize this speaking window, and if yes, who the speaker will be. 2. Who would you like me to list as the applicant representative? Previous fraternities have generally listed the sitting chapter president, but it’s up to you if you would like an alumni member, or if you’d like multiple names included. 3. The PC hearings for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s CUP re-reviews were held on 5/28. Though staff presented a recommendation to modify the CUP with revised conditions of approval, the Commission decided to revoke both fraternity’s use permits. The Resolution will not be adopted until the 6/11 PC meeting since staff did not prepare a draft Resolution for revocation ahead of the PC meeting. a. Based on this outcome straying from the other two more recent reviews (from late 2024), I will not be making a recommendation on behalf of staff for modification or revocation of the CUP for your re-review. I am still drafting the staff report, but it will present the project facts and list the alternatives PC may choose, which are 1. Modification of use permit with updated conditions of approval, 2. Revocation of use permit, or 3. Continuance of review to future PC meeting date. I will have two draft Resolutions ready as attachments to my staff report, one for modification and one for revocation, in hopes that, based on their decision, PC will be able to adopt the Resolution the same night of the hearing. b. If you interested in reviewing the 5/28 PC meeting, the agenda, staff report, and minutes (no resolution yet though) can be found in these archives:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/Browse.aspx?id=26297&dbid=0&repo= CityClerk. c. You can watch the entirety of the 5/28 PC meeting here:https://www.youtube.com/live/avwDf oK3syU?si=0HUh_66DQiJAKQpp. From around 7 minutes to 1 hour, 45 minutes relates to the fraternity CUP re-reviews. 198 If you have any questions about the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting, or your upcoming hearing, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005. png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications From: John Hatfield < Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 9:24 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Wade Spriggs < Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill +Terry Reeves, incoming Alumni Corporation President Mallory, appreciate you sending this all over. It is very helpful. We were all finally able to line up our schedules and 6/25 works best for us. If we can put that date on the books, we'd appreciate it. Looking forward to being in SLO next month. Thank you, John Hatfield 199 On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 10:31 AM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Wade, My apologies for the delay in following up after our meeting. I set up the application for the re-review of your existing Conditional Use Permit to have a fraternity house at 720 Foothill (new application number: USE- 0334-2025). I have attached here a copy of your current use permit, which will be modified/updated through this re-review process. As I mentioned I would provide, below are links to two different fraternity use permit reviews that were recently processed.  Alpha Epsilon Pi, re-review of existing use permit o Staff Report for Planning Commission (PC) Meeting, agenda item 4a for re- review of existing use permit: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=201304&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk o PC Resolution, approval of modifications to existing use permit:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=202053&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk  Lambda Chi Alpha, review of new use permit o Staff Report for PC Meeting, agenda item 4a for new use permit application:https://opengov.slocity.org/W ebLink/Browse.aspx?id=194681&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk o PC Resolution, approval of use permit: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=195337&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk o Staff Report for City Council (CC) Meeting, agenda item 6b for appeal of PC use permit approval: https://opengov.slocity.org/We bLink/DocView.aspx?id=200405&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk o CC Resolution, upholding PC approval of use permit:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=200865&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk o Appellant presentation available in the CC 10-15-24 agenda folder: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLin 200 k/browse.aspx?id=200395&dbid=0&repo =CityClerk The updates we will be recommending to the Planning Commission will be very similar to what was approved for AEPi and Lambda. I am moving forward with re- reviewing two other fraternity use permits at the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting. We discussed the possibility of reviewing your use permit at the same time as the others on 5/28, or by itself at the 6/11 Planning Commission meeting. If neither of those options work, 6/25 would be the next available date. Please let me know which review date would be best for you. If you would like to make it on the 5/28 meeting agenda, I would need to know asap. I will have a draft of the staff report and proposed resolution available for your review at least one week ahead of whichever date we schedule for the PC meeting. I may be in touch in the next few weeks if I have any questions while working on the staff report and resolution recommendation. Let me know if you have any questions for me! Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image00 5.png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications -- John Hatfield 201 ( -- Terry -- Terry -- Terry RESOLUTION NO. PC-1106-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REVOKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY AT 720 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. WHEREAS, on April 10, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo approved a Use Permit to allow a fraternity (Delta Upsilon) at 720 and 726 Foothill Boulevard (Resolution No. 5054-91 (1991 Series)); and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2009, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo revised a Use Permit to allow a fraternity (Delta Upsilon) at 720 Foothill Boulevard (Resolution No. 5527-09 (2009 Series)); and WHEREAS, the City received complaints, and, between September 2024 and June 2025, the Police Department issued five citations relating to noise violations at the property (one was successfully appealed); and WHEREAS, Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation on January 29, 2025, and Administrative Citations on February 14 and March 19, 2025, relating to the multiple, verified violations of the existing Use Permit; and WHEREAS, in order to grant a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find, among other things, that the establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use (SLOMC 17.110.070(A)(5)); and WHEREAS, revocation of an existing Conditional Use Permit is appropriate if the Planning Commission cannot make one or more findings of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.110 upon review of the permit due to violations thereof (SLOMC 17.102.020); and WHEREAS, Condition No. 13 of Use Permit U 36-09 requires Planning Commission re-review if complaints are received by the City, at which time the Planning Commission could add, delete, or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on June 25, 2025, for the re-review of the Conditional Use Permit and to consider the continuation of the fraternity at 720 Foothill Boulevard, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-0334- 2025, Delta Upsilon, applicant; and Resolution No. PC-1106-25 720 & 726 Foothill Blvd. Page 2 WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was provided at the time and in the manner required by, including publication on June 12, 2025, in the New Times newspaper of a legal ad for the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo considered all evidence, including testimony of the applicant, public comment, and recommendations by staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Recitals stated above are incorporated herein as Findings of the Planning Commission. In revoking the Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Municipal Code Section17.102.020(C)(7), and without prejudice, the Planning Commission additionally finds: 1. The current use is not consistent with Fraternity regulations of Municipal Code Section 17.86.130 because: a. The fraternity has been repeatedly cited for violations of the City’s Noise Ordinance. b. Since September 2024, the Police have issued five (5) citations for noise violations at the property, one of which was successfully appealed. A couple of these citations occurred after the property was served with a Notice of Violation of the Conditional Use Permit on January 29, 2025, which provided notice of the recommendation to review the use permit to the Deputy Director of Community Development. c. The maximum number of people on site exceeded the limit established by the Conditional Use Permit (21 people), as noted by the Police Officer that issued a citation for a noise violation on February 27, 2025. d. The fraternity has failed to apply for special event permits or parking and transportation plans as required by their Conditional Use Permit, despite hosting an event on February 27, 2025, which exceeded the routine gathering capacity limits of the Permit. 2. For the reasons stated above, the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the current use is not compatible with residential uses in the vicinity. The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code Section17.110.070(A)(3) cannot be made. Resolution No. PC-1106-25 720 & 726 Foothill Blvd. Page 3 3. For the reasons stated above, the continued use of the property as a fraternity under the Conditional Use Permit is not appropriate for the subject location, is incompatible with the neighborhood, and will be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity . The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code Section 17.110.070(A)(5) cannot be made. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit may have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.) SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby REVOKES the Conditional Use Permit U 36-09, previously issued to 720 Foothill Boulevard for use as a fraternity, based on the Findings stated above . Any subsequent application to establish a subsequent Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity at the location shall be subject to all requirements of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to Section 17.86.130 and Chapter 17.110. On motion by Commissioner Cooley, seconded by Commissioner Jorgensen, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cooley, Jorgensen, Kahn, and Munoz-Morris, Vice Chair Tolle, and Chair Houghton NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sheryl Flores The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of June 2025. ___________________ Tyler Corey, Secretary Planning Commission 202 From:Zion, Sarah Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 11:14 AM To:Matthew Subject:RE: Request to Continue Administrative Hearing to Late September - Citation #ADM 42480 Hello Matthew, The hearing officer has reviewed your request and a continuance can be granted to September 23, 2025, at 3:00 pm. If you choose to accept this continuance, please confirm in writing that you waive your right to have your hearing held within 60 days of filing your appeal. Sarah Zion pronouns she/her/hers Legal Assistant II City Attorney's Office 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E szion@slocity.org T 805.783.7856 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. From: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 9:32 AM To: Matthew < ; City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Request to Continue Administrative Hearing to Late September - Citation #ADM 42480 Hello Matthew, Your request has been sent to the hearing officer. I will send an update once a determination has been made. Sarah Zion pronouns she/her/hers Legal Assistant II 203 City Attorney's Office 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E szion@slocity.org T 805.783.7856 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. From: Matthew < Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 9:17 AM To: City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Subject: Request to Continue Administrative Hearing to Late September - Citation #ADM 42480 Hearing Officer Sharon Whitney c/o City Attorney’s Office 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Hearing Officer Whitney, I hope you are doing well. I am writing to respectfully request a continuance of my administrative appeal hearing currently scheduled for July 31, 2025, at 3:30 PM for Administrative Citation #ADM 42480. My executive board and I, who are representing our fraternity's house in this matter, are home for the summer and working full-time jobs. Given our work commitments and the travel distance, it is difficult for us to attend the scheduled hearing date. We want to appear in person to present our case and ensure we can answer any questions directly. Therefore, I request that the hearing be rescheduled to a date in late September, once we have returned to San Luis Obispo and can fully participate in the process. I believe this constitutes good cause for a continuance, as it impacts our ability to represent ourselves. Thank you for considering my request. Please let me know if you need any additional information or documentation from me. Best, Matthew Gnos 220 From:kathie walker < Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 10:07 AM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Hi Michelle, Thank you for your response. Yes, it is true that there was discssion about the specific St. Fratty's/St. Patrick's Day event, after some arm- twisting to have the issue included as an initiative for 2024-2025. However, the larger issue and the main factors addessed by the Grand Jury within the four chapters of its report are related to the dozens of illegal fraternities embedded in the residential neighborhoods that cause absolute mayhem and gravely affect the residents who live in these neighborhoods (and The Tribune article & Editorial by the Tribune Board related to the same issue). Those issues have never been agendized or discussed, even though it has been brought up during every SCLC meeting by two members who represent the neighborhoods. (The third member representing the neighborhoods has never brought up the issue and has criticized those who do.) To claim that SCLC has been a forum for actual discussion about this issue is not true. The two members have tried to discuss it and have hit a brick wall again and again. That's one of my points. I included some history for context, as I've seen the evolution of SCLC, and the Council was purposeful when it recommended the two additional seats for residents impacted by college students 10 years ago. Those seats should be appointed by the Neighborhood Groups, not elected by the SCLC, which is primarily Cal Poly and City representatives. Go back to the original intent of expanded the membership to include those two seats, and the Council was specific about the intent of those seats, tying them to residents in SLO who are impacted, and who would align with and support the RQN representative. That's another point that should be addressed. The City is defending against the Grand Jury report by citing the SCLC as a committee that "provides a forum for discussions of shared resident and student concerns and needs." It is not honest to allege that there is open discussion or any solutions for the neighborhood issues brought forward by Mila and Brett. The Grand Jury asked for, and I provided, the recordings of the SCLC meetings. They knew that St. Fratty's/St. Patrick's Day was a standing item on the agenda and heard the reports. That was only one of the issues in their report, which they commended Cal Poly and the City for solving in 2025. They also heard the criticism toward Brett and Mila, and the stonewalling when trying to have the matter addressed by the committee. That is the bigger issue, and the neighborhood problems related to the fraternities are not getting solved. The intent of the Council when the two seats were added was for representatives who are impacted by college students or are involved in neighborhood groups to bring those issues forward. Sorry if I'm repetitive. We've been going through a lot. My mom died two weeks ago, and Steve and I have decided to leave the neighborhood. We are grieving. On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 6:23 AM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: 221 Hi Kathie, Thanks for your email. I appreciate you sharing your concerns as always. There is too much to respond directly to in your email, but I will say that I attended both my assigned meetings of the SCLC earlier this year and happen to have had the opportunity to participate three meetings in a row, before the St. Patrick’s Day just by coincidence of my assigned meeting this year and last. At all the meetings, there was critical discussion and constructive feedback provided and I believe all this (and many other complimentary efforts) contributed to the largely much more contained events this past holiday. It was a constructive discussion effort that, while everyone did not always agree, resulted positively and put us, together, on a path to more future improvements. If we can all keep approaching these challenges constructively, we will get where we want to go together. That said, because there is so much in your email, I am not clear of what your actual request or question is. If you would like to give me two or three sentences on any specific requests you have, I will be happy to try and respond or get answers. Thank you, Michelle From: kathie walker < Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 8:03:56 PM To: 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>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Dear City Councilmembers, The Agenda item 8a for the meeting on July 15, 2025, has some "Background" that lists some "approaches by the City that have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings," and it lists the SCLC meetings as one of the approaches. I want to address some of the items on the list separately, starting with the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC). Considering the SCLC is referenced in the City’s response to the Grand Jury and the Agenda as one of the resources to help solve neighborhood issues, there is value in the historical context of SCLC and the relatively recent evolution. Here are some of the important developments to consider: The SCLC was formed in 1987 “to address issues regarding the community and Cal Poly students,” according to its original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Cuesta College was included in 1988. The original purpose and “mission statement” of the committee were to address issues regarding the community and college students. However, portions of the MOU were recently revised by Police Chief Rick Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford, as covered in greater detail below. The Legislative edits showing the MOU before and after it was edited is attached to this email. History of Neighborhood Representatives on the SCLC The previous MOU, before it was revised, listed members of SCLC from Cal Poly, Cuesta, the City of San Luis Obispo, the 5 th District Supervisor and community members including one seat for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) and two seats for other residents which are to be appointed by the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. The “Resident Organizations” 222 referred to organized neighborhoods such as Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Monterey Heights Neighborhood Association (MHNA), and Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF). Those two additional seats for residents impacted by college students in their neighborhood were added in 2016, based on the recommendation of the city council after the Civility-Neighborhood Wellness Report was presented to the council in 2015. Christine Wallace of SLOPD made the presentation. She was then the Neighborhood Outreach Manager and is now the Police Public Affairs Manager and is a voting member of the SCLC. The SCLC updated their MOU in January 2019 to read: “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations shall: Appoint one member from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods; Appoint one member to represent Geographic Neighborhood Association; and Appoint one community member-at-large...” The voting members on SCLC are mostly associated with Cal Poly and Cuesta College. The expansion of two residents' seats on SCLC was to give parity to those residents who are impacted by college students living in the neighborhoods, and to support one another to bring issues forward to be addressed during committee meetings, as stated by the City Council when the SCLC was expanded to include the two additional seats. Some seats were vacant following inconsistent SCLC meetings during the COVID-19 shutdown, including the two resident seats appointed by the Resident Organizations. The two seats were not formally listed as vacant until the SCLC meeting in January 2023. At the SCLC meeting in March 2023, the Resident Organizations brought forward two residents for appointments to the two seats, as is their right per the MOU at that time: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, who lives in the Neighborhoods North of Foothill geographic area, and Lydia Mourenza who has advocated for neighborhood wellness and also lives in the northern part of the city. During the same meeting, San Luis Obispo mayor Erica Stewart recommended that Abe Lincoln be appointed to one of the resident seats, although Mr. Lincoln is not affiliated with the Resident Organizations and was not recommended by them. Mr. Lincoln lives in the Arbors development, which is not affected by issues such as noisy parties and disturbances by college-aged students, and he had never advocated on behalf of any neighborhood association related to neighborhood wellness or the adverse impact of college students in their neighborhood. Mr. Lincoln’s neighborhood has an HOA that prevents the sort of disturbances experienced by college student-impacted neighborhoods. During the March 2023 meeting, Mayor Stewart made a motion to appoint Abe Lincoln. Christine Wallace seconded the motion, and it was passed, which gave Mr. Lincoln one of the seats that were supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations according to SCLC's MOU. Although the Resident Organizations had two people at the meeting that they planned to appoint to the two seats, the SCLC rejected one of their appointments (Lydia Mourenza), contrary to the provisions of the MOU. Notably, Ms. Wallace gave the presentation of the Civility Report to the City Council in 2015, where all five council members recommended the expansion of SCLC by two seats, and each council member said that they should be residents who are concerned with the town gown relationship with the impacts by college students in their neighborhood. Ms. Wallace was also present at the SCLC meeting in January 2019, when the MOU was modified to give the power of appointment of the three “resident” seats to the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. In May 2023, Sandra Rowley went to the SCLC meeting to correct the mistake. She is the chair of RQN and is in communication with the chairs of Resident Organizations such as AVNA, NNOF, etc. Ms. Rowley read the terms of the MOU out loud and pointed out that Mr. Lincoln was illegally appointed to a seat that is supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations. She asked him to step down so the Resident Organizations could appoint their representative, according to the terms of the 223 MOU. Mr. Lincoln refused and posted about the situation on his Facebook page, claiming he was “appointed” by the mayor, Erica Stewart, instead of them [RQN’s appointed person], and he had no intention to step down with the hashtag #smalltownpolitics. In the comments of his Facebook post, Mr. Lincoln criticized another Representative [RQN Board Member Brett Cross], saying: “in the two meetings I have attended a fair amount of time is spent by one individual complaining about the students. I am aiming to try to help change that tone.” And in another comment, he said, “I did mention bringing back Mardi Gras in my first meeting. Maybe that’s what caused the alarm *laughing emoji*” Indeed, Mr. Lincoln has continued to criticize those who have brought up the problems related to noise from illegal fraternities during SCLC meetings and read a prepared statement condemning me and my husband, specifically calling out the website “How to Ruin a Neighborhood”. He has never engaged in any discussion about the noise and problems experienced by those living in the northern part of the city, and such issues were the original intent of the SCLC. The SCLC meetings were recorded so there is no confusion about what has been said during the meetings. 224 When the city council discussed expanding SCLC in 2015, to include two additional seats for residents, they commented that it would be good for the lone community resident on SCLC at that time - the RQN representative – because the RQN representative would feel supported by the two additional residents impacted by college students who would fill the two new seats on the committee. Obviously, Mr. Lincoln’s criticism has not been supportive and is not consistent with the purpose of the seat he is occupying, especially according to the directives of the City Council in 2015. When Ms. Rowley pointed out SCLC’s failure to follow the MOU to appoint Lydia Mourenza to the then-City Manager, she was referred to the Police Chief to resolve the issue. There was some discussion between Ms. Rowley and Chief Scott about a resolution before the fall of 2023, and Chief Scott indicated there could be a resolution to allow a resident who lives in an impacted neighborhood to be appointed to SCLC. However, when the matter was brought up by Ms. Rowley during the first SCLC meeting in August 2024, Chief Scott was silent on the matter, and it was not corrected. Then, Chief Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford revised the MOU to exclude the Resident Organizations’ ability to appoint representatives to the two “resident” seats. The edits eliminated the two seats appointed by the “Resident Organizations” and gave the power to SCLC to elect the residents that SCLC (mostly Cal Poly and City representatives) agree to. A Google doc shows the edits made by both Chief Scott and Ms. Crawford in the right hand column of the document. The revised MOU took away the appointed seats from the organized neighborhood groups who are most impacted by issues related to college students living in their neighborhood. Every other seat in SLCL is “provided” by the City, County, Cal Poly, or Cuesta, and some members are “appointed”, as listed in the MOU. None of those seats are elected by the SCLC. Now, under the terms of the rewritten MOU, the seats for residents are decided by a popularity contest for those who have connections with city leadership, like Mr. Lincoln who was brought forward by the mayor of SLO, even though his is not affiliated with any organized neighborhood group who works for neighborhood wellness related to the negative impacts of college student-issues. It seems that the original intent of SCLC has been pushed aside for a more political “public relations” type agenda. For exam ple, the problem with the illegal fraternity operations within single-family neighborhoods was brought up by the RQN Representative and/or Geographical Neighborhood Representative during 2023-2024 and every SCLC meeting during 2024- 2025 and was never put on the agenda or discussed. The situation today in 2025 is worse than it was in 2023, with more illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods than ever. Unless there is significant pushback from multiple SCLC members, Cal Poly does not engage in solving serious problems. For example, during the first meeting of the academic year in August 2024, the City Manager and others listed St. Fratty’s / St. Patrick’s Day as an important initiative to be discussed for the 2024-2025 academic year. During the next meeting in September 2024, the chair, Cal Poly ASI president Ashley Spragins, presented the list of initiatives for the year and it did not include St. Fratty's / St. Patrick's Day. Ms. McDonald pointed out that St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day was missing from the list of initiatives, and Ms. Spragins pulled out a hard copy of the newer MOU and read the revised first sentence, "SCLC will serve as a mechanism of communication among 225 Cal Poly, the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis Obispo community, to develop and strengthen town gown relationships." She then questioned how the St. Patrick’s Day problem aligned with that statement. The implication was that it did not, and it was apparent that the issue was intentionally left off the list of initiatives because Cal Poly did not want to address it. There was significant pushback from City representatives, including the City Manager, Whitney McDonald, Councilmember Andy Pease, Mayor Erica Stewart, Christine Wallace, and the two Neighborhood Representatives for Geographical Neighborhoods and RQN. Ms. Spragins finally gave in and added it to the list of initiatives. Ms. McDonald asked that Cal Poly provide a report about St. Patrick’s Day plans as a standing item on the SCLC agenda. Without that pushback, the item would not have been included as an SCLC initiative for last academic year 2024-2025. This highlights the heart of the matter, which is that the concerns of the two Representatives in the extreme minority speak out about real issues in the neighborhoods near Cal Poly are never agendized or addressed by the SCLC. Those Representatives are also not supported by the City Representatives on SCLC and have been criticized by other members of SCLC for stating their concerns. It seems like SCLC is pointless when it comes to solving meaningful neighborhood issues, which was the original purpose of the SCLC and was emphasized in the Civility Report in 2015. The problem was amplified when MOU eliminated the ability of the “Resident Organizations” to appoint two representatives independent of Cal Poly, Cuesta, and the City. The context and reasoning for that rule were explained to Police Chief Scott, but were ignored when he revised the MOU with Ms. Crawford. The limited voice of the Geographical Neighborhood, Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre, and RQN Representative, Mr. Cross, certainly has not carried any weight to solve the problems of illegal fraternities and ongoing associated noise, etc., as outlined in the Grand Jury report, even though the City represents an argument that SCLC is an inclusive avenue that does solve neighborhood town- gown problems. That narrative is false, and those issues brough up by Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre and Mr. Cross have been ignored by the SCLC overall. Discourse is a necessary part of the purpose of the SCLC. If each member is appointed by Cal Poly and City leadership without giving residents affected by college students in their neighborhoods, it defeats the intended purpose and mission of SCLC and becomes another political group with “elected” members associated with the majority. There should be more impacted residents on the SCLC to bring parity and real solutions to the issues felt by the neighborhoods in the northern part of the City. Otherwise, it is disingenous for the City to represent that Representatives concerned for the neighborhoods who have spoken out about neighborhood issuses are "heard" or have any impact on the problems outlined in the Grand Jury report. Thank you for your consideration. -Kathie Walker 226 From:Zion, Sarah Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 9:32 AM To:Matthew; City_Attorney Subject:RE: Request to Continue Administrative Hearing to Late September - Citation #ADM 42480 Hello Matthew, Your request has been sent to the hearing officer. I will send an update once a determination has been made. Sarah Zion pronouns she/her/hers Legal Assistant II City Attorney's Office 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E szion@slocity.org T 805.783.7856 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. From: Matthew < Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 9:17 AM To: City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Subject: Request to Continue Administrative Hearing to Late September - Citation #ADM 42480 Hearing Officer Sharon Whitney c/o City Attorney’s Office 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Hearing Officer Whitney, I hope you are doing well. I am writing to respectfully request a continuance of my administrative appeal hearing currently scheduled for July 31, 2025, at 3:30 PM for Administrative Citation #ADM 42480. 227 My executive board and I, who are representing our fraternity's house in this matter, are home for the summer and working full-time jobs. Given our work commitments and the travel distance, it is difficult for us to attend the scheduled hearing date. We want to appear in person to present our case and ensure we can answer any questions directly. Therefore, I request that the hearing be rescheduled to a date in late September, once we have returned to San Luis Obispo and can fully participate in the process. I believe this constitutes good cause for a continuance, as it impacts our ability to represent ourselves. Thank you for considering my request. Please let me know if you need any additional information or documentation from me. Best, Matthew Gnos 228 From:Zion, Sarah Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 9:32 AM To:Matthew; City_Attorney Subject:RE: Request to Continue Administrative Hearing to Late September - Citation #ADM 42480 Hello Matthew, Your request has been sent to the hearing officer. I will send an update once a determination has been made. Sarah Zion pronouns she/her/hers Legal Assistant II City Attorney's Office 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E szion@slocity.org T 805.783.7856 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. From: Matthew < Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 9:17 AM To: City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Subject: Request to Continue Administrative Hearing to Late September - Citation #ADM 42480 Hearing Officer Sharon Whitney c/o City Attorney’s Office 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Hearing Officer Whitney, I hope you are doing well. I am writing to respectfully request a continuance of my administrative appeal hearing currently scheduled for July 31, 2025, at 3:30 PM for Administrative Citation #ADM 42480. 229 My executive board and I, who are representing our fraternity's house in this matter, are home for the summer and working full-time jobs. Given our work commitments and the travel distance, it is difficult for us to attend the scheduled hearing date. We want to appear in person to present our case and ensure we can answer any questions directly. Therefore, I request that the hearing be rescheduled to a date in late September, once we have returned to San Luis Obispo and can fully participate in the process. I believe this constitutes good cause for a continuance, as it impacts our ability to represent ourselves. Thank you for considering my request. Please let me know if you need any additional information or documentation from me. Best, Matthew Gnos 232 From:Matthew < Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 9:17 AM To:City_Attorney Subject:Request to Continue Administrative Hearing to Late September - Citation #ADM 42480 Hearing Officer Sharon Whitney c/o City Attorney’s Office 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Hearing Officer Whitney, I hope you are doing well. I am writing to respectfully request a continuance of my administrative appeal hearing currently scheduled for July 31, 2025, at 3:30 PM for Administrative Citation #ADM 42480. My executive board and I, who are representing our fraternity's house in this matter, are home for the summer and working full-time jobs. Given our work commitments and the travel distance, it is difficult for us to attend the scheduled hearing date. We want to appear in person to present our case and ensure we can answer any questions directly. Therefore, I request that the hearing be rescheduled to a date in late September, once we have returned to San Luis Obispo and can fully participate in the process. I believe this constitutes good cause for a continuance, as it impacts our ability to represent ourselves. Thank you for considering my request. Please let me know if you need any additional information or documentation from me. Best, Matthew Gnos 233 From:Armas, Sara Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 8:42 AM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Hi Kathie, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the July 15th City Council Regular Meeting. Regards, Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E SArmas@slocity.org T 805.781.7110 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 8:04 PM To: 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>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Dear City Councilmembers, The Agenda item 8a for the meeting on July 15, 2025, has some "Background" that lists some "approaches by the City that have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings," and it lists the SCLC meetings as one of the approaches. I want to address some of the items on the list separately, starting with the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC). Considering the SCLC is referenced in the City’s response to the Grand Jury and the Agenda as one of the resources to help solve neighborhood issues, there is value in the historical context of SCLC and the relatively recent evolution. Here are some of the important developments to consider: The SCLC was formed in 1987 “to address issues regarding the community and Cal Poly students,” according to its original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Cuesta College was included in 1988. The original purpose and “mission statement” of the committee were to address issues regarding the community and college students. 234 However, portions of the MOU were recently revised by Police Chief Rick Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford, as covered in greater detail below. The Legislative edits showing the MOU before and after it was edited is attache d to this email. History of Neighborhood Representatives on the SCLC The previous MOU, before it was revised, listed members of SCLC from Cal Poly, Cuesta, the City of San Luis Obispo, the 5 th District Supervisor and community members including one seat for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) and two seats for other residents which are to be appointed by the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. The “Resident Organizations” referred to organized neighborhoods such as Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Monterey Heights Neighborhood Association (MHNA), and Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF). Those two additional seats for residents impacted by college students in their neighborhood were added in 2016, based on the recommendation of the city council after the Civility-Neighborhood Wellness Report was presented to the council in 2015. Christine Wallace of SLOPD made the presentation. She was then the Neighborhood Outreach Manager and is now the Police Public Affairs Manager and is a voting member of the SCLC. The SCLC updated their MOU in January 2019 to read: “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations shall: Appoint one member from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods; Appoint one member to represent Geographic Neighborhood Association; and Appoint one community member-at-large...” The voting members on SCLC are mostly associated with Cal Poly and Cuesta College. The expansion of two residents' seats on SCLC was to give parity to those residents who are impacted by college students living in the neighborhoods, and to support one another to bring issues forward to be addressed during committee meetings, as stated by the City Council when the SCLC was expanded to include the two additional seats. Some seats were vacant following inconsistent SCLC meetings during the COVID-19 shutdown, including the two resident seats appointed by the Resident Organizations. The two seats were not formally listed as vacant until the SCLC meeting in January 2023. At the SCLC meeting in March 2023, the Resident Organizations brought forward two residents for appointments to the two seats, as is their right per the MOU at that time: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, who lives in the Neighborhoods North of Foothill geographic area, and Lydia Mourenza who has advocated for neighborhood wellness and also lives in the northern part of the city. During the same meeting, San Luis Obispo mayor Erica Stewart recommended that Abe Lincoln be appointed to one of the resident seats, although Mr. Lincoln is not affiliated with the Resident Organizations and was not recommended by them. Mr. Lincoln lives in the Arbors development, which is not affected by issues such as noisy parties and disturbances by college-aged students, and he had never advocated on behalf of any neighborhood association related to neighborhood wellness or the adverse impact of college students in their neighborhood. Mr. Lincoln’s neighborhood has an HOA that prevents the sort of disturbances experienced by college student-impacted neighborhoods. During the March 2023 meeting, Mayor Stewart made a motion to appoint Abe Lincoln. Christine Wallace seconded the motion, and it was passed, which gave Mr. Lincoln one of the seats that were supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations according to SCLC's MOU. Although the Resident Organizations had two people at the meeting that they planned to appoint to the two seats, the SCLC rejected one of their appointments (Lydia Mourenza), contrary to the provisions of the MOU. Notably, Ms. Wallace gave the presentation of the Civility Report to the City Council in 2015, where all five council members recommended the expansion of SCLC by two seats, and each council member said that they should be residents who are concerned with the town gown relationship with the impacts by college students in their neighborhood. 235 Ms. Wallace was also present at the SCLC meeting in January 2019, when the MOU was modified to give the power of appointment of the three “resident” seats to the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. In May 2023, Sandra Rowley went to the SCLC meeting to correct the mistake. She is the chair of RQN and is in communication with the chairs of Resident Organizations such as AVNA, NNOF, etc. Ms. Rowley read the terms of the MOU out loud and pointed out that Mr. Lincoln was illegally appointed to a seat that is supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations. She asked him to step down so the Resident Organizations could appoint their representative, according to the terms of the MOU. Mr. Lincoln refused and posted about the situation on his Facebook page, claiming he was “appointed” by the mayor, Erica Stewart, instead of them [RQN’s appointed person], and he had no intention to step down with the hashtag #smalltownpolitics. In the comments of his Facebook post, Mr. Lincoln criticized another Representative [RQN Board Member Brett Cross], saying: “in the two meetings I have attended a fair amount of time is spent by one individual complaining about the students. I am aiming to try to help change that tone.” And in another comment, he said, “I did mention bringing back Mardi Gras in my first meeting. Maybe that’s what caused the alarm *laughing emoji*” 236 Indeed, Mr. Lincoln has continued to criticize those who have brought up the problems related to noise from illegal fraternities during SCLC meetings and read a prepared statement condemning me and my husband, specifically calling out the website “How to Ruin a Neighborhood”. He has never engaged in any discussion about the noise and problems experienced by those living in the northern part of the city, and such issues were the original intent of the SCLC. The SCLC meetings were recorded so there is no confusion about what has been said during the meetings. When the city council discussed expanding SCLC in 2015, to include two additional seats for residents, they commented that it would be good for the lone community resident on SCLC at that time - the RQN representative – because the RQN representative would feel supported by the two additional residents impacted by college students who would fill the two new seats on the committee. Obviously, Mr. Lincoln’s criticism has not been supportive and is not consistent with the purpose of the seat he is occupying, especially according to the directives of the City Council in 2015. When Ms. Rowley pointed out SCLC’s failure to follow the MOU to appoint Lydia Mourenza to the then-City Manager, she was referred to the Police Chief to resolve the issue. There was some discussion between Ms. Rowley and Chief Scott about a resolution before the fall of 2023, and Chief Scott indicated there could be a resolution to allow a resident who lives in an impacted neighborhood to be appointed to SCLC. However, when the matter was brought up by Ms. Rowley during the first SCLC meeting in August 2024, Chief Scott was silent on the matter, and it was not corrected. Then, Chief Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford revised the MOU to exclude the Resident Organizations’ ability to appoint representatives to the two “resident” seats. The edits eliminated the two seats appointed by the “Resident Organizations” and gave the power to SCLC to elect the residents that SCLC (mostly Cal Poly and City representatives) agree to. A Google doc shows the edits made by both Chief Scott and Ms. Crawford in the right hand column of the document. The revised MOU took away the appointed seats from the organized neighborhood groups who are most impacted by issues related to college students living in their neighborhood. Every other seat in SLCL is “provided” by the City, County, Cal Poly, or Cuesta, and some members are “appointed”, as listed in the MOU. None of those seats are elected by the SCLC. Now, under the terms of the rewritten MOU, the seats for residents are decided by a popularity contest for those who have connections with city leadership, like Mr. Lincoln who was brought forward by the mayor of SLO, even though his is not affili ated with any organized neighborhood group who works for neighborhood wellness related to the negative impacts of college student-issues. It seems that the original intent of SCLC has been pushed aside for a more political “public relations” type agenda. For example, the problem with the illegal fraternity operations within single-family neighborhoods was brought up by the RQN Representative and/or Geographical Neighborhood Representative during 2023-2024 and every SCLC meeting during 2024-2025 and was never put on the agenda or discussed. The situation today in 2025 is worse than it was in 2023, with more illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods than ever. Unless there is significant pushback from multiple SCLC members, Cal Poly does not engage in solving serious problems. For example, during the first meeting of the academic year in August 2024, the City Manager and others listed St. Fratty’s / St. 237 Patrick’s Day as an important initiative to be discussed for the 2024-2025 academic year. During the next meeting in September 2024, the chair, Cal Poly ASI president Ashley Spragins, presented the list of initiatives for the year and it did not include St. Fratty's / St. Patrick's Day. Ms. McDonald pointed out that St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day was missing from the list of initiatives, and Ms. Spragins pulle d out a hard copy of the newer MOU and read the revised first sentence, "SCLC will serve as a mechanism of communication among Cal Poly, the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis Obispo community, to develop and strengthen town gown relationships." She then questioned how the St. Patrick’s Day problem aligned with that statement. The implication was that it did not, and it was apparent that the issue was intentionally left off the list of initiatives because Cal Poly did not want to address it. There was significant pushback from City representatives, including the City Manager, Whitney McDonald, Councilmember Andy Pease, Mayor Erica Stewart, Christine Wallace, and the two Neighborhood Representatives for Geographical Neighborhoods and RQN. Ms. Spragins finally gave in and added it to the list of initiatives. Ms. McDonald asked that Cal Poly provide a report about St. Patrick’s Day plans as a standing item on the SCLC agenda. Without that pushback, the item would not have been included as an SCLC initiative for last academic year 2024-2025. This highlights the heart of the matter, which is that the concerns of the two Representatives in the extreme minority speak out about real issues in the neighborhoods near Cal Poly are never agendized or addressed by the SCLC. Those Representatives are also not supported by the City Representatives on SCLC and have been criticized by other members of SCLC for stating their concerns. It seems like SCLC is pointless when it comes to solving meaningful neighborhood issues, which was the original purpose of the SCLC and was emphasized in the Civility Report in 2015. The problem was amplified when MOU eliminated the ability of the “Resident Organizations” to appoint two representatives independent of Cal Poly, Cuesta, and the City. The context and reasoning for that rule were explained to Police Chief Scott, but were ignored when he revised the MOU with Ms. Crawford. The limited voice of the Geographical Neighborhood, Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre, and RQN Representative, Mr. Cross, certainly has not carried any weight to solve the problems of illegal fraternities and ongoing associated noise, etc., as outlined in the Grand Jury report, even though the City represents an argument that SCLC is an inclusive avenue that does solve neighborhood town- gown problems. That narrative is false, and those issues brough up by Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre and Mr. Cross have been ignored by the SCLC overall. Discourse is a necessary part of the purpose of the SCLC. If each member is appointed by Cal Poly and City leadership without giving residents affected by college students in their neighborhoods, it defeats the intended purpose and mission of SCLC and becomes another political group with “elected” members associated with the majority. There should be more impacted residents on the SCLC to bring parity and real solutions to the issues felt by the neighborhoods in the northern part of the City. Otherwise, it is disingenous for the City to represent that Representatives concerned for the neighborhoods who have spoken out about neighborhood issuses are "heard" or have any impact on the problems outlined in the Grand Jury report. Thank you for your consideration. -Kathie Walker 238 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 6:23 AM To:kathie walker Subject:Re: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Hi Kathie, Thanks for your email. I appreciate you sharing your concerns as always. There is too much to respond directly to in your email, but I will say that I attended both my assigned meetings of the SCLC earlier this year and happen to have had the opportunity to participate three meetings in a row, before the St. Patrick’s Day just by coincidence of my assigned meeting this year and last. At all the meetings, there was critical discussion and constructive feedback provided and I believe all this (and many other complimentary efforts) contributed to the largely much more contained events this past holiday. It was a constructive discussion effort that, while everyone did not always agree, resulted positively and put us, together, on a path to more future improvements. If we can all keep approaching these challenges constructively, we will get where we want to go together. That said, because there is so much in your email, I am not clear of what your actual request or question is. If you would like to give me two or three sentences on any specific requests you have, I will be happy to try and respond or get answers. Thank you, Michelle From: kathie walker < Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 8:03:56 PM To: 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>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: SCLC: Purpose and Parity Dear City Councilmembers, The Agenda item 8a for the meeting on July 15, 2025, has some "Background" that lists some "approaches by the City that have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings," and it lists the SCLC meetings as one of the approaches. I want to address some of the items on the list separately, starting with the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC). Considering the SCLC is referenced in the City’s response to the Grand Jury and the Agenda as one of the resources to help solve neighborhood issues, there is value in the historical context of SCLC and the relatively recent evolution. Here are some of the important developments to consider: The SCLC was formed in 1987 “to address issues regarding the community and Cal Poly students,” according to its original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Cuesta College was included in 1988. The original purpose and “mission statement” of the committee were to address issues regarding the community and college students. 239 However, portions of the MOU were recently revised by Police Chief Rick Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford, as covered in greater detail below. The Legislative edits showing the MOU before and after it was edited is attache d to this email. History of Neighborhood Representatives on the SCLC The previous MOU, before it was revised, listed members of SCLC from Cal Poly, Cuesta, the City of San Luis Obispo, the 5 th District Supervisor and community members including one seat for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) and two seats for other residents which are to be appointed by the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. The “Resident Organizations” referred to organized neighborhoods such as Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Monterey Heights Neighborhood Association (MHNA), and Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF). Those two additional seats for residents impacted by college students in their neighborhood were added in 2016, based on the recommendation of the city council after the Civility-Neighborhood Wellness Report was presented to the council in 2015. Christine Wallace of SLOPD made the presentation. She was then the Neighborhood Outreach Manager and is now the Police Public Affairs Manager and is a voting member of the SCLC. The SCLC updated their MOU in January 2019 to read: “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations shall: Appoint one member from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods; Appoint one member to represent Geographic Neighborhood Association; and Appoint one community member-at-large...” The voting members on SCLC are mostly associated with Cal Poly and Cuesta College. The expansion of two residents' seats on SCLC was to give parity to those residents who are impacted by college students living in the neighborhoods, and to support one another to bring issues forward to be addressed during committee meetings, as stated by the City Council when the SCLC was expanded to include the two additional seats. Some seats were vacant following inconsistent SCLC meetings during the COVID-19 shutdown, including the two resident seats appointed by the Resident Organizations. The two seats were not formally listed as vacant until the SCLC meeting in January 2023. At the SCLC meeting in March 2023, the Resident Organizations brought forward two residents for appointments to the two seats, as is their right per the MOU at that time: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, who lives in the Neighborhoods North of Foothill geographic area, and Lydia Mourenza who has advocated for neighborhood wellness and also lives in the northern part of the city. During the same meeting, San Luis Obispo mayor Erica Stewart recommended that Abe Lincoln be appointed to one of the resident seats, although Mr. Lincoln is not affiliated with the Resident Organizations and was not recommended by them. Mr. Lincoln lives in the Arbors development, which is not affected by issues such as noisy parties and disturbances by college-aged students, and he had never advocated on behalf of any neighborhood association related to neighborhood wellness or the adverse impact of college students in their neighborhood. Mr. Lincoln’s neighborhood has an HOA that prevents the sort of disturbances experienced by college student-impacted neighborhoods. During the March 2023 meeting, Mayor Stewart made a motion to appoint Abe Lincoln. Christine Wallace seconded the motion, and it was passed, which gave Mr. Lincoln one of the seats that were supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations according to SCLC's MOU. Although the Resident Organizations had two people at the meeting that they planned to appoint to the two seats, the SCLC rejected one of their appointments (Lydia Mourenza), contrary to the provisions of the MOU. Notably, Ms. Wallace gave the presentation of the Civility Report to the City Council in 2015, where all five council members recommended the expansion of SCLC by two seats, and each council member said that they should be residents who are concerned with the town gown relationship with the impacts by college students in their neighborhood. 240 Ms. Wallace was also present at the SCLC meeting in January 2019, when the MOU was modified to give the power of appointment of the three “resident” seats to the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. In May 2023, Sandra Rowley went to the SCLC meeting to correct the mistake. She is the chair of RQN and is in communication with the chairs of Resident Organizations such as AVNA, NNOF, etc. Ms. Rowley read the terms of the MOU out loud and pointed out that Mr. Lincoln was illegally appointed to a seat that is supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations. She asked him to step down so the Resident Organizations could appoint their representative, according to the terms of the MOU. Mr. Lincoln refused and posted about the situation on his Facebook page, claiming he was “appointed” by the mayor, Erica Stewart, instead of them [RQN’s appointed person], and he had no intention to step down with the hashtag #smalltownpolitics. In the comments of his Facebook post, Mr. Lincoln criticized another Representative [RQN Board Member Brett Cross], saying: “in the two meetings I have attended a fair amount of time is spent by one individual complaining about the students. I am aiming to try to help change that tone.” And in another comment, he said, “I did mention bringing back Mardi Gras in my first meeting. Maybe that’s what caused the alarm *laughing emoji*” 241 Indeed, Mr. Lincoln has continued to criticize those who have brought up the problems related to noise from illegal fraternities during SCLC meetings and read a prepared statement condemning me and my husband, specifically calling out the website “How to Ruin a Neighborhood”. He has never engaged in any discussion about the noise and problems experienced by those living in the northern part of the city, and such issues were the original intent of the SCLC. The SCLC meetings were recorded so there is no confusion about what has been said during the meetings. When the city council discussed expanding SCLC in 2015, to include two additional seats for residents, they commented that it would be good for the lone community resident on SCLC at that time - the RQN representative – because the RQN representative would feel supported by the two additional residents impacted by college students who would fill the two new seats on the committee. Obviously, Mr. Lincoln’s criticism has not been supportive and is not consistent with the purpose of the seat he is occupying, especially according to the directives of the City Council in 2015. When Ms. Rowley pointed out SCLC’s failure to follow the MOU to appoint Lydia Mourenza to the then-City Manager, she was referred to the Police Chief to resolve the issue. There was some discussion between Ms. Rowley and Chief Scott about a resolution before the fall of 2023, and Chief Scott indicated there could be a resolution to allow a resident who lives in an impacted neighborhood to be appointed to SCLC. However, when the matter was brought up by Ms. Rowley during the first SCLC meeting in August 2024, Chief Scott was silent on the matter, and it was not corrected. Then, Chief Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford revised the MOU to exclude the Resident Organizations’ ability to appoint representatives to the two “resident” seats. The edits eliminated the two seats appointed by the “Resident Organizations” and gave the power to SCLC to elect the residents that SCLC (mostly Cal Poly and City representatives) agree to. A Google doc shows the edits made by both Chief Scott and Ms. Crawford in the right hand column of the document. The revised MOU took away the appointed seats from the organized neighborhood groups who are most impacted by issues related to college students living in their neighborhood. Every other seat in SLCL is “provided” by the City, County, Cal Poly, or Cuesta, and some members are “appointed”, as listed in the MOU. None of those seats are elected by the SCLC. Now, under the terms of the rewritten MOU, the seats for residents are decided by a popularity contest for those who have connections with city leadership, like Mr. Lincoln who was brought forward by the mayor of SLO, even though his is not affili ated with any organized neighborhood group who works for neighborhood wellness related to the negative impacts of college student-issues. It seems that the original intent of SCLC has been pushed aside for a more political “public relations” type agenda. For example, the problem with the illegal fraternity operations within single-family neighborhoods was brought up by the RQN Representative and/or Geographical Neighborhood Representative during 2023-2024 and every SCLC meeting during 2024-2025 and was never put on the agenda or discussed. The situation today in 2025 is worse than it was in 2023, with more illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods than ever. Unless there is significant pushback from multiple SCLC members, Cal Poly does not engage in solving serious problems. For example, during the first meeting of the academic year in August 2024, the City Manager and others listed St. Fratty’s / St. 242 Patrick’s Day as an important initiative to be discussed for the 2024-2025 academic year. During the next meeting in September 2024, the chair, Cal Poly ASI president Ashley Spragins, presented the list of initiatives for the year and it did not include St. Fratty's / St. Patrick's Day. Ms. McDonald pointed out that St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day was missing from the list of initiatives, and Ms. Spragins pulle d out a hard copy of the newer MOU and read the revised first sentence, "SCLC will serve as a mechanism of communication among Cal Poly, the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis Obispo community, to develop and strengthen town gown relationships." She then questioned how the St. Patrick’s Day problem aligned with that statement. The implication was that it did not, and it was apparent that the issue was intentionally left off the list of initiatives because Cal Poly did not want to address it. There was significant pushback from City representatives, including the City Manager, Whitney McDonald, Councilmember Andy Pease, Mayor Erica Stewart, Christine Wallace, and the two Neighborhood Representatives for Geographical Neighborhoods and RQN. Ms. Spragins finally gave in and added it to the list of initiatives. Ms. McDonald asked that Cal Poly provide a report about St. Patrick’s Day plans as a standing item on the SCLC agenda. Without that pushback, the item would not have been included as an SCLC initiative for last academic year 2024-2025. This highlights the heart of the matter, which is that the concerns of the two Representatives in the extreme minority speak out about real issues in the neighborhoods near Cal Poly are never agendized or addressed by the SCLC. Those Representatives are also not supported by the City Representatives on SCLC and have been criticized by other members of SCLC for stating their concerns. It seems like SCLC is pointless when it comes to solving meaningful neighborhood issues, which was the original purpose of the SCLC and was emphasized in the Civility Report in 2015. The problem was amplified when MOU eliminated the ability of the “Resident Organizations” to appoint two representatives independent of Cal Poly, Cuesta, and the City. The context and reasoning for that rule were explained to Police Chief Scott, but were ignored when he revised the MOU with Ms. Crawford. The limited voice of the Geographical Neighborhood, Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre, and RQN Representative, Mr. Cross, certainly has not carried any weight to solve the problems of illegal fraternities and ongoing associated noise, etc., as outlined in the Grand Jury report, even though the City represents an argument that SCLC is an inclusive avenue that does solve neighborhood town- gown problems. That narrative is false, and those issues brough up by Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre and Mr. Cross have been ignored by the SCLC overall. Discourse is a necessary part of the purpose of the SCLC. If each member is appointed by Cal Poly and City leadership without giving residents affected by college students in their neighborhoods, it defeats the intended purpose and mission of SCLC and becomes another political group with “elected” members associated with the majority. There should be more impacted residents on the SCLC to bring parity and real solutions to the issues felt by the neighborhoods in the northern part of the City. Otherwise, it is disingenous for the City to represent that Representatives concerned for the neighborhoods who have spoken out about neighborhood issuses are "heard" or have any impact on the problems outlined in the Grand Jury report. Thank you for your consideration. -Kathie Walker 243 From:kathie walker < Sent:Thursday, July 10, 2025 8:04 PM To:Marx, Jan; Francis, Emily; Stewart, Erica A; Boswell, Mike; Shoresman, Michelle; E-mail Council Website Subject:SCLC: Purpose and Parity Attachments:Legislative edit SCLC MOU Fall 2023.pdf Dear City Councilmembers, The Agenda item 8a for the meeting on July 15, 2025, has some "Background" that lists some "approaches by the City that have been intended to address the neighborhood impacts of excessive noise from gatherings," and it lists the SCLC meetings as one of the approaches. I want to address some of the items on the list separately, starting with the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC). Considering the SCLC is referenced in the City’s response to the Grand Jury and the Agenda as one of the resources to help solve neighborhood issues, there is value in the historical context of SCLC and the relatively recent evolution. Here are some of the important developments to consider: The SCLC was formed in 1987 “to address issues regarding the community and Cal Poly students,” according to its original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Cuesta College was included in 1988. The original purpose and “mission statement” of the committee were to address issues regarding the community and college students. However, portions of the MOU were recently revised by Police Chief Rick Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford, as covered in greater detail below. The Legislative edits showing the MOU before and after it was edited is attache d to this email. History of Neighborhood Representatives on the SCLC The previous MOU, before it was revised, listed members of SCLC from Cal Poly, Cuesta, the City of San Luis Obispo, the 5 th District Supervisor and community members including one seat for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) and two seats for other residents which are to be appointed by the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. The “Resident Organizations” referred to organized neighborhoods such as Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVNA), Monterey Heights Neighborhood Association (MHNA), and Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF). Those two additional seats for residents impacted by college students in their neighborhood were added in 2016, based on the recommendation of the city council after the Civility-Neighborhood Wellness Report was presented to the council in 2015. Christine Wallace of SLOPD made the presentation. She was then the Neighborhood Outreach Manager and is now the Police Public Affairs Manager and is a voting member of the SCLC. The SCLC updated their MOU in January 2019 to read: “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations shall: Appoint one member from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods; Appoint one member to represent Geographic Neighborhood Association; and Appoint one community member-at-large...” The voting members on SCLC are mostly associated with Cal Poly and Cuesta College. The expansion of two residents' seats on SCLC was to give parity to those residents who are impacted by college students living in the neighborhoods, and to support one 244 another to bring issues forward to be addressed during committee meetings, as stated by the City Council when the SCLC was expanded to include the two additional seats. Some seats were vacant following inconsistent SCLC meetings during the COVID-19 shutdown, including the two resident seats appointed by the Resident Organizations. The two seats were not formally listed as vacant until the SCLC meeting in January 2023. At the SCLC meeting in March 2023, the Resident Organizations brought forward two residents for appointments to the two seats, as is their right per the MOU at that time: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, who lives in the Neighborhoods North of Foothill geographic area, and Lydia Mourenza who has advocated for neighborhood wellness and also lives in the northern part of the city. During the same meeting, San Luis Obispo mayor Erica Stewart recommended that Abe Lincoln be appointed to one of the resident seats, although Mr. Lincoln is not affiliated with the Resident Organizations and was not recommended by them. Mr. Lincoln lives in the Arbors development, which is not affected by issues such as noisy parties and disturbances by college-aged students, and he had never advocated on behalf of any neighborhood association related to neighborhood wellness or the adverse impact of college students in their neighborhood. Mr. Lincoln’s neighborhood has an HOA that prevents the sort of disturbances experienced by college student-impacted neighborhoods. During the March 2023 meeting, Mayor Stewart made a motion to appoint Abe Lincoln. Christine Wallace seconded the motion, and it was passed, which gave Mr. Lincoln one of the seats that were supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations according to SCLC's MOU. Although the Resident Organizations had two people at the meeting that they planned to appoint to the two seats, the SCLC rejected one of their appointments (Lydia Mourenza), contrary to the provisions of the MOU. Notably, Ms. Wallace gave the presentation of the Civility Report to the City Council in 2015, where all five council members recommended the expansion of SCLC by two seats, and each council member said that they should be residents who are concerned with the town gown relationship with the impacts by college students in their neighborhood. Ms. Wallace was also present at the SCLC meeting in January 2019, when the MOU was modified to give the power of appointment of the three “resident” seats to the “San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations”. In May 2023, Sandra Rowley went to the SCLC meeting to correct the mistake. She is the chair of RQN and is in communication with the chairs of Resident Organizations such as AVNA, NNOF, etc. Ms. Rowley read the terms of the MOU out loud and pointed out that Mr. Lincoln was illegally appointed to a seat that is supposed to be appointed by the Resident Organizations. She asked him to step down so the Resident Organizations could appoint their representative, according to the terms of the MOU. Mr. Lincoln refused and posted about the situation on his Facebook page, claiming he was “appointed” by the mayor, Erica Stewart, instead of them [RQN’s appointed person], and he had no intention to step down with the hashtag #smalltownpolitics. In the comments of his Facebook post, Mr. Lincoln criticized another Representative [RQN Board Member Brett Cross], saying: “in the two meetings I have attended a fair amount of time is spent by one individual complaining about the students. I am aiming to try to help change that tone.” And in another comment, he said, “I did mention bringing back Mardi Gras in my first meeting. Maybe that’s what caused the alarm *laughing emoji*” 245 Indeed, Mr. Lincoln has continued to criticize those who have brought up the problems related to noise from illegal fraternities during SCLC meetings and read a prepared statement condemning me and my husband, specifically calling out the website “How to Ruin a Neighborhood”. He has never engaged in any discussion about the noise and problems experienced by those living in the northern part of the city, and such issues were the original intent of the SCLC. The SCLC meetings were recorded so there is no confusion about what has been said during the meetings. When the city council discussed expanding SCLC in 2015, to include two additional seats for residents, they commented that it would be good for the lone community resident on SCLC at that time - the RQN representative – because the RQN representative would feel supported by the two additional residents impacted by college students who would fill the two new seats on the committee. Obviously, Mr. Lincoln’s criticism has not been supportive and is not consistent with the purpose of the seat he is occupying, especially according to the directives of the City Council in 2015. When Ms. Rowley pointed out SCLC’s failure to follow the MOU to appoint Lydia Mourenza to the then-City Manager, she was referred to the Police Chief to resolve the issue. There was some discussion between Ms. Rowley and Chief Scott about a resolution before the fall of 2023, and Chief Scott indicated there could be a resolution to allow a resident who lives in an impacted neighborhood to be appointed to SCLC. 246 However, when the matter was brought up by Ms. Rowley during the first SCLC meeting in August 2024, Chief Scott was silent on the matter, and it was not corrected. Then, Chief Scott and Cal Poly's ASI Executive Director Michelle Crawford revised the MOU to exclude the Resident Organizations’ ability to appoint representatives to the two “resident” seats. The edits eliminated the two seats appointed by the “Resident Organizations” and gave the power to SCLC to elect the residents that SCLC (mostly Cal Poly and City representatives) agree to. A Google doc shows the edits made by both Chief Scott and Ms. Crawford in the right hand column of the document. The revised MOU took away the appointed seats from the organized neighborhood groups who are most impacted by issues related to college students living in their neighborhood. Every other seat in SLCL is “provided” by the City, County, Cal Poly, or Cuesta, and some members are “appointed”, as listed in the MOU. None of those seats are elected by the SCLC. Now, under the terms of the rewritten MOU, the seats for residents are decided by a popularity contest for those who have connections with city leadership, like Mr. Lincoln who was brought forward by the mayor of SLO, even though his is not affili ated with any organized neighborhood group who works for neighborhood wellness related to the negative impacts of college student-issues. It seems that the original intent of SCLC has been pushed aside for a more political “public relations” type agenda. For example, the problem with the illegal fraternity operations within single-family neighborhoods was brought up by the RQN Representative and/or Geographical Neighborhood Representative during 2023-2024 and every SCLC meeting during 2024-2025 and was never put on the agenda or discussed. The situation today in 2025 is worse than it was in 2023, with more illegal fraternities in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods than ever. Unless there is significant pushback from multiple SCLC members, Cal Poly does not engage in solving serious problems. For example, during the first meeting of the academic year in August 2024, the City Manager and others listed St. Fratty’s / St. Patrick’s Day as an important initiative to be discussed for the 2024-2025 academic year. During the next meeting in September 2024, the chair, Cal Poly ASI president Ashley Spragins, presented the list of initiatives for the year and it did not include St. Fratty's / St. Patrick's Day. Ms. McDonald pointed out that St. Fratty’s/St. Patrick’s Day was missing from the list of initiatives, and Ms. Spragins pulle d out a hard copy of the newer MOU and read the revised first sentence, "SCLC will serve as a mechanism of communication among Cal Poly, the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis Obispo community, to develop and strengthen town gown relationships." She then questioned how the St. Patrick’s Day problem aligned with that statement. The implication was that it did not, and it was apparent that the issue was intentionally left off the list of initiatives because Cal Poly did not want to address it. There was significant pushback from City representatives, including the City Manager, Whitney McDonald, Councilmember Andy Pease, Mayor Erica Stewart, Christine Wallace, and the two Neighborhood Representatives for Geographical Neighborhoods and RQN. Ms. Spragins finally gave in and added it to the list of initiatives. Ms. McDonald asked that Cal Poly provide a report about St. Patrick’s Day plans as a standing item on the SCLC agenda. Without that pushback, the item would not have been included as an SCLC initiative for last academic year 2024-2025. 247 This highlights the heart of the matter, which is that the concerns of the two Representatives in the extreme minority speak out about real issues in the neighborhoods near Cal Poly are never agendized or addressed by the SCLC. Those Representatives are also not supported by the City Representatives on SCLC and have been criticized by other members of SCLC for stating their concerns. It seems like SCLC is pointless when it comes to solving meaningful neighborhood issues, which was the original purpose of the SCLC and was emphasized in the Civility Report in 2015. The problem was amplified when MOU eliminated the ability of the “Resident Organizations” to appoint two representatives independent of Cal Poly, Cuesta, and the City. The context and reasoning for that rule were explained to Police Chief Scott, but were ignored when he revised the MOU with Ms. Crawford. The limited voice of the Geographical Neighborhood, Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre, and RQN Representative, Mr. Cross, certainly has not carried any weight to solve the problems of illegal fraternities and ongoing associated noise, etc., as outlined in the Grand Jury report, even though the City represents an argument that SCLC is an inclusive avenue that does solve neighborhood town- gown problems. That narrative is false, and those issues brough up by Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre and Mr. Cross have been ignored by the SCLC overall. Discourse is a necessary part of the purpose of the SCLC. If each member is appointed by Cal Poly and City leadership without giving residents affected by college students in their neighborhoods, it defeats the intended purpose and mission of SCLC and becomes another political group with “elected” members associated with the majority. There should be more impacted residents on the SCLC to bring parity and real solutions to the issues felt by the neighborhoods in the northern part of the City. Otherwise, it is disingenous for the City to represent that Representatives concerned for the neighborhoods who have spoken out about neighborhood issuses are "heard" or have any impact on the problems outlined in the Grand Jury report. Thank you for your consideration. -Kathie Walker Memorandum of Understanding Between California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) , Associated Students, Inc. of Cal ifornia Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo (ASI), the Associated Students of Cuesta College (ASCC) , the City of San Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo Regarding the Student-Community Liaison Committee XXX XX, 2023 This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between Cal Poly, the Associated St udents, Inc. of California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo (ASI), the Associated Students of Cuesta College (ASCC), the City of San Luis Obispo (City) and the County of San Luis Obispo (County). Background: The Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) was formed in the spring of 1987 to address issues regarding the community and Cal Poly students. It was envisioned that the chair should be the Cal Poly student body president to demonstrate parity between the students and city officials. serve as a mechanism of communication among Cal Poly, the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis Obispo community, to develop and strengthen town gown relationships to address issues regarding the community and Cal Poly students. It was envisioned that the chair should be the Cal Poly student body president to demonstrate parity between students and city officials. In 1988, SCLC was expanded to include representation from Cuesta College. Thanks to the support from several areas (City Departments, Chamber of Commerce, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods and other Cal Poly organizations), SCLC was acknowledged as a key link in communication between students and the City & County of San Luis Obispo. Term: The term of this Memorandum of Understanding shall be from January 1 through December 31, and will be automatically renewed annually for the period of January 1 through December 31 unless written notice of either party is given requesting termination. This Agreement is effective on XXXXXX and will automatically renew each year successively unless terminated by either party upon written notice prior to the expiration of the then current renewal term. The agreement will be distributed prior to the first meeting of the new academic year and subsequently reviewed for changes annually at the first SCLC meeting of the academic year. Purpose: The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to define the relationship between Associated Students, Inc., the Associated Students of Cuesta College, the City of San Luis Obispo and the 1 of 7 County of San Luis Obispo as represented by the SCLC outline the structure of SCLC and responsibilities of all parties represented within the SCLC. Mission: The mission of the SCLC is to serve as a mechanism for communication between Cal Poly State University , Cuesta College, the City of San Luis Obispo , and the County of San Luis Obispo, and community organizations within San Luis Obispo. SCLC will serve and to proactively engage in discussions and actions to promote positive relations, mutual respect, and improved quality of life for all members of the San Luis Obispo community. Objective of the SCLC: In order to achieve our mission purpose , SCLC will: ● Educate student and non-student residents in the community about cooperative methods to improve neighborhood relations. ● Promote the positive aspects of campus and community co-existence and interaction. ● Encourage increased participation, collaboration, and involvement in activities on campus and in the community. ● Serve as a public forum on student/community related issues. ● Advise City government bodies or other community organizations on City issues through consultative review. ● Share information about the campuses and community to strengthen relationships and enhance quality of life for all residents of San Luis Obispo. ● Explore and implement solutions to pertinent problems . Problem solving through collaborative exploration and implementation of meaningful solutions to pertinent issues. Open Meeting Act Adherence: As a group comprising a variety of elected officials, the SCLC is committed to adhering to the Brown Act, also known as the Brown Open Meeting Act. Under the Brown Act, the SCLC will conduct its meetings openly, providing advance notice to the public, allowing public attendance, and enabling public comment on relevant matters. The group will also maintain accurate records of meetings. By following the Brown Act, the SCLC upholds the principles of transparency and public participation, fostering trust and accountability within the community it serves. Meetings: Shall be held the third Thursday of each month annually, except for monthly at a set and recurring time, with the exception of December, June and July, unless otherwise noted in the annual calendar or at the discretion of the chair. Reports and Agenda Format: A. One minute brief report from each voting member of the Committee B. Updates from an Subcommittees C. Business items shall consist of items within the purview and scope of SCLC D. Agenda and meeting materials shall be distributed no less than 48 hours prior to each meeting. ● Call to order ● Approval of minutes ● Open Forum ● Reports: o Chair/Vice Chair o San Luis Obispo City Manager o Neighborhood Wellness Civility Report 2 of 7 o Residents for Quality Neighborhoods o Community Representative Reports ● Old Business ● New Business ● Voting Member Reports (1 minute) ● Announcements ● Adjournment SCLC Officers: Chair ● Shall be the current ASI President ● Shall run facilitate SCLC meetings ● Shall provide an agenda and minutes for each meeting ● Appoint subcommittee chairs Vice Chair ● Shall be the current ASCC President ● Assume responsibility for chair in their absence Representation Membership: Voting members shall include representatives from Cal Poly, ASI, Cuesta College, the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo County, and San Luis Obispo resident organizations designated representatives for the San Luis Obispo community. The Chair shall be the Cal Poly ASI President. The Vice Chair shall be the Cuesta College ASCC President. *All voting members may designate proxy except for the chair and vice chair positions. Cal Poly ● Dean of Students ● Interfraternity Council representative ● Panhellenic Council representative ● United Sorority and Fraternity Council representative ASI ● Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) President ● Student-at-Large (appointed by ASI President) ● ASI Executive Director Cuesta College ● ASCC President ● Vice President of Student Services ● Student-at-Large, appointed by ASCC ● ASCC Advisor City of San Luis Obispo ● Mayor ● City Manager ● Police Chief ● Neighborhood Outreach Manager Police Public Affairs Manager 3 of 7 County of San Luis Obispo ● Board of Supervisors representative Community ● Non-student community member s -at-large ● Geographic Neighborhoods Association /Group representatives ● Residents for Quality Neighborhoods representative Community Partners ● SLO Solutions/Creative Mediation representative Representatives Role within the SCLC: SCLC shall: ● Educate student and non-student residents in the community about cooperative methods to improve neighborhood relations. ● Promote the positive aspects of campus and community co-existence and interaction. ● Encourage increased participation, collaboration and involvement in activities on campus and in the community. ● Serve as a public forum on student/community related issues. ● Advise City government bodies or other community organizations on City issues through consultative review. ● Explore and implement solutions to pertinent problems. Cal Poly shall: ● Provide the following voting representatives: Dean of Students, or designee,(1) Interfraternity Council representative, (1) Panhellenic Council representative, (1) United Sorority and Fraternity Council representative. ● Participate in education of community for improving student/community relations. ASI shall: ● Provide chairperson for the SCLC, in the form of the elected ASI President and an additional student-at-large. ● Provide the following voting representatives: (1) Student-at-Large, ASI Executive Director, or designee. ● Coordinate monthly meeting schedule for the SCLC, plus appropriate workshops , subcommittee meeting, etc . including subcommittee meetings, socials , etc. as necessary. ● Coordinate annual goal setting workshop s in support of the SCLC mission purpose . ● Provide basic administrative support for meeting minutes, handouts, and other committee documents. Cuesta College/ASCC shall: ● Provide the vice chair for the SCLC, in the form of the elected ASCC President and an additional student-at-large . ● Provide the following voting representatives: (1) Student-at-large, ASCC Advisor, and the Vice President of Student Services, or designee. ● Work with and Support the functions of, the SCLC Chair in coordinating meetings, subcommittees, and annual workshops, such as transition, as needed. ● Participate in education of community about improving for strengthening student/community relations. 4 of 7 City of San Luis Obispo shall: ● Provide meeting space for monthly meetings. ● Provide the following voting representatives: two City Council representatives including the Mayor and. by rotation, a councilmember. San Luis Obispo Mayor, San Luis Obispo City Manager, San Luis Obispo Police Chief, and San Luis Obispo Police Neighborhood Outreach Manager Public Affairs Manager, or designee. ● Provide the following non-voting representatives: One City Council representative, or designee. ● Participate in education of community about improving for strengthening student/community relations. County of San Luis Obispo shall: ● Provide at least one Supervisor, or representative from his/her office the following voting representatives: (1) San Luis Obispo County Supervisor, or designee , whose district includes the City of San Luis Obispo. ● Provide other non-voting San Luis Obispo County support staff as available through the office of the participating Supervisor. ● Participate in education of community about improving for strengthening student/community relations. San Luis Obispo Resident Organizations shall: San Luis Obispo Residents for Quality Neighborhoods shall: ● Appoint Provide one member voting representative from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, or designee to serve on SCLC ● Appoint one member to represent Geographic Neighborhood Association ● Appoint one community member-at-large ● Participate in education of community about improving for strengthening student/community relations Community Partners shall: ● SLO Solutions/Creative Mediation shall provide (1) voting representative , or designee to serve on the SCLC. ● Provide input, guidance, and awareness of important resources for managing and mitigating community conflict around issues that immerge between student/community relationships. SCLC shall nominate and appoint (by a majority vote): ● At least one (1) and no more than five (5) voting community members-at-large selected from the following: o A recognized City of San Luis Obispo Geographic Neighborhood Association/Group and/or; o A City of San Luis Obispo community member with an expressed interest, demonstrated impact, or in immediate proximity to either Cal Poly University or Cuesta College. ● These members shall participate in education of community for strengthening student/community relations and the work and goals of SCLC in the SLO community. 5 of 7 Annual Budget: In order to carry out the mission of the SCLC and its endeavors, each representative shall contribute to the SCLC budget, to be administered by Cal Poly ASI. The budget shall be used for but not limited to: funding from the following representatives is provided on an annual basis. ASI will send invoices to each representative following the approval of the MOU. Funds collected will be held by ASI. All funding appropriation decisions require approval by the SCLC . Funds are intended, but not limited to support: SCLC marketing materials, annual events, grants for projects that promote community wellbeing, and meeting supplies. Budget funds not used in a fiscal year will rollover to the next fiscal year. Representative Amount: Cal Poly $500 ASI In-Kind (administrative support) Cuesta College/ASCC $500 City of San Luis Obispo (City Council/Mayor, City Administrator, San Luis Obispo Police Department) $500 County of San Luis Obispo (Two members of the Board of Supervisors) $500 In witness whereof, this Memorandum of Understanding has been executed by the parties hereto as of the date first above written. Sam Andrews ASI President Associated Students, Inc. California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA Zack Stever ASCC President Associated Students of Cuesta College San Luis Obispo, CA Dr. Joy Pedersen Dean of Students California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA Derek Johnson City Manager San Luis Obispo, CA Approved by the SCLC on XXX XX, 2023 6 of 7 Michelle Crawford ASI Executive Director Associated Students, Inc. California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA Dr. Elizabeth Coria Vice President of Student Services-Designee Associated Students of Cuesta College San Luis Obispo, CA Erica A. Stewart Mayor City of San Luis Obispo, CA Debbie Arnold County of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 2 of 7 248 From:Zion, Sarah Sent:Thursday, July 10, 2025 10:14 AM To:Matthew G Subject:Notice of Hearing- Gnos Attachments:20250710_Notice-Hearing_Gnos.pdf Matthew Gnos, Please see the attached. Sarah Zion pronouns she/her/hers Legal Assistant II City Attorney's Office 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E szion@slocity.org T 805.783.7856 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. 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 In-Person Hearing Page 1 July 10, 2025 Matthew Gnos 240 Balceta Ct. Danville, CA 94526 Via First Class Mail and Email to: Re: Notice of In-Person Hearing Administrative Citation #ADM 42480 To Matthew Gnos: On June 4, 2025, 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: July 31, 2025, at 3:30 PM Council Hearing, 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 shall be addressed as follows: Hearing Officer Sharon Whitney c/o City Attorney’s Office 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Email: city_attorney@slocity.org Any communications, notices, or requests to the director of the department that issued the citation shall be addressed as follows: Chief Rick Scott c/o Christine Wallace 1042 Walnut Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 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, Sarah Zion Legal Assistant City Attorney’s Office Enc: Administrative Record Notification from Body Worn Camera Manufacturer Motorola Solutions Technical Notification: V700 Body-Worn Camera Audio Subsystem with Automatic Gain Control (AGC) INTERNAL ONLY December 2, 2024 PURPOSE & BACKGROUND This notification provides technical details regarding the Automatic Gain Control (AGC) functionality inherent in the Motorola Solutions V700 Body-Worn Camera (BWC) audio subsystem. Understanding AGC is crucial for interpreting audio characteristics in V700 recordings, particularly in environments with dynamic sound pressure levels. TECHNICAL DETAILS The V700 BWC incorporates an integrated Automatic Gain Control (AGC) circuit within its audio signal path. The AGC's primary function is to maintain an optimal audio recording level and prevent signal clipping (distortion) when exposed to high sound pressure levels (SPL), while also enhancing low-level audio signals in quieter conditions. 1. Dynamic Gain Reduction: When the input audio signal exceeds a predetermined threshold (indicative of high SPLs, such as loud environmental noise or proximate loud speech), the AGC dynamically reduces the system's input gain. This compression of the dynamic range prevents saturation of the analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and subsequent audio distortion. 2. Dynamic Gain Amplification: Conversely, in low SPL environments, the AGC increases the gain to amplify ambient sounds and distant vocalizations. 3. Attack and Release Times: The AGC operates with specific attack and release time constants, dictating how quickly it responds to changes in input signal levels. This ensures a smooth transition in gain adjustments rather than abrupt changes. Consequently, audio signals from sources producing high SPLs will be recorded at a moderated level due to AGC intervention. IMPACT - The AGC's operation results in a recorded audio signal that may not linearly correspond to the absolute sound pressure levels perceived by an observer at the scene, especially for high-intensity sounds. - This is a deliberate engineering design choice to maximize audio intelligibility and usability across a wide operational dynamic range, rather than a limitation of the microphone or recording fidelity for extreme SPLs. - The characteristic is consistent across all V700 units due to the standardized audio processing architecture. - The evidentiary integrity of the audio content, including the presence and nature of sounds, is preserved. RECOMMENDATIONS When analyzing V700 audio recordings, particularly in scenarios involving high-decibel sound sources: - Acknowledge the presence and function of the AGC as described herein. - Understand that the primary objective of the V700 audio system is to capture clear and intelligible audio, which necessitates dynamic range compression via AGC in loud environments. - For critical assessment of absolute sound levels, consider that the AGC normalizes the audio signal. On-scene observations or specialized acoustic measurement tools (if used) would provide context for perceived loudness. FOR MORE INFORMATION If you have questions regarding this notification, please contact your respective Motorola Solutions Account Manager. Motorola Solutions Confidential - For Internal Use Only - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE Motorola Solutions, Inc. 500 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Il 60661 U.S.A. motorolasolutions.com MOTOROLA, MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS and the Stylized M Logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Motorola Trademark Holdings, LLC and are used under license. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. ©2025 Motorola Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. Specifications are subject to change without notice 03-2024 SZ 6/5/2025 Matthew Gnos 240 Balceta Ct Danville, CA 94526 June 4, 2025 City of San Luis Obispo Office of the City Clerk 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally appeal the administrative citation issued to me on May 31, 2025, at 2:56 PM at 1264 E Foothill Blvd by Officer Sisemore (EMP NO. 80908) for an alleged violation of SLMC 9.12.050A/B regarding noise disturbances. I am the recipient of the administrative citation and serve as the Risk Manager for Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity. I am representing the organization in this matter. For this appeal, I elect to proceed with the Hearing Officer. While we acknowledge that a small gathering with soft music playing, I respectfully request that this citation be reconsidered for the following reasons: 1. Mistaken Source of Music We believe the citation was issued in error due to a misunderstanding about the source of the loud music. At the time of the alleged violation, a neighboring party was playing extremely loud music less than 300 feet away. We have video evidence from our property showing that the music continued even after ours had been shut off. Based on the timing and volume, we believe the responding officer mistakenly attributed the neighbor ’s music to our house. 2. Lack of Evidence Meeting Legal Threshold According to city ordinance, for a noise violation to be enforceable before 10 PM, the sound must be audible from at least 50 feet from the property line. The officer issued the citation while standing in our driveway. Bodycam footage confirms that the only music audible at the time of citation was from the neighboring party. 3. Supporting Evidence Demonstrates Neighboring Violation Between 3:31-3:34 pm, we have four video recordings from our backyard and the back alley documenting loud music coming from the neighbor’s property. This further supports our claim that the disturbance originated elsewhere. The officer even stated that the violation was based on what he heard in the back alley, not from the front of our property. The music in the back alley aligns with the direction of the neighboring party, as shown in our supporting footage. 4. Reasonable Efforts Were Taken to Prevent Violations We took active steps to avoid any noise issues. Sober monitors were stationed at both the front and back of the property throughout the event and were tasked with ensuring the music remained at a reasonable volume. At no point did they report that the music was too loud. We were fully mindful of city regulations and did everything we could to stay in compliance. Given these factors, I believe the citation was issued unfairly and respectfully request that it be dismissed. Please send all official correspondence related to this appeal to my mailing address: 240 Balceta Court, Danville, CA 94526. A copy of my payment receipt for the required appeal fee is attached. I affirm under penalty of perjury that the statements made in this appeal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Matthew Gnos 07/02/25 San Luis Obispo Police Department 919 13:37 NSPY Clearance Data Page: 1 NSPY OFF/LOC/CLEARANCE: Incident address When reported Responsible off Cle Offe ------------------------- ------------------- --------------- --- ---- 1264 FOOTHILL; GRID K-06 14:36:07 05/31/2025 Sisemore, P CIT NSPY 1264 FOOTHILL; GRID K-06 14:07:46 02/22/2025 Brewer, D NV NSPY 1264 FOOTHILL; GRID K-06 22:24:22 02/08/2025 Corsaw, S CIT NSPY 1264 FOOTHILL; GRID K-06 16:00:59 01/21/2025 Etherton, B RF -THP 1264 FOOTHILL; LAMBDA CHI 22:00:44 10/18/2024 Mangskau, N CIT NSPY 1264 FOOTHILL; GRID K-06 22:17:18 10/09/2024 Bravo, D CIT NSPY 1264 FOOTHILL; GRID K-06 23:14:37 10/02/2024 Dominguez, D CIT NSPY 1264 FOOTHILL; GRID K-06 14:18:22 09/21/2024 Ares, C NV NSPY 1264 FOOTHILL; GRID K-06 13:53:30 09/19/2024 Behrens, J RF -THP 1264 FOOTHILL; GRID K-06 22:45:26 06/10/2024 Ares, J NV NSPY 1264 FOOTHILL; GRID K-06 03:24:56 03/16/2024 Gingery, B CIT NSPY 1264 FOOTHILL; GRID K-06 22:10:09 02/10/2024 Ares, J NR NSPY 1264 FOOTHILL; AREA OF;GR 01:04:05 01/19/2024 Noriega, N NV NSPY = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 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 July 10, 2025, 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: Matthew Gnos 240 Balceta Ct. Danville, CA 94526 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 July 10, 2025, at San Luis Obispo, California. _____________________________ Sarah Zion 249 From:STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent:Wednesday, July 9, 2025 4:36 PM To:Wallace, Christine Subject:Re: 1621 McCollum Hi Christine, I'm back at office give a call From: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 3:03 PM To: STEVEN FERRARIO < Subject: RE: 1621 McCollum Until 5pm. Thanks, CW From: STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:49 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 1621 McCollum I have to meet clients at 2:45, should be back to office by 4 and will try you then. How late are you working From: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:44 PM To: STEVEN FERRARIO < Subject: RE: 1621 McCollum 250 I’m walking out now for a meeting. I’ll be back in about an hour, happy to chat then. My desk is 805-781-7186. Thanks, Christine From: STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:42 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 1621 McCollum I'm available now.. Give a call 805-215-3350 From: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:13 PM To: STEVEN FERRARIO < Subject: RE: 1621 McCollum Yes. I would like to speak with you about properties that have been identified as fraternity satellite houses. CW From: STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 12:31 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: 1621 McCollum Hi Christine, Did you try to reach out to me yesterday regarding 1621 McCollum which I manage? 251 From:The Tribune - Tribune Afternoon Headlines <news@newsletter.sanluisobispo.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 9, 2025 4:01 PM To:Zion, Sarah Subject:Grand jury says SLO didn't manage fraternities near Cal Poly To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.The Tribune Tribune Afternoon Headlines To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Every day, our e-edition readers receive additional national, world, politics, sports and opinion content, as well as a 2-10 page themed section. Check it out: sanluisobispo.com/e-edition To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Police told students gathering on Hathway Avenue in San Luis Obispo to “go home or get arrested” on the morning of March 15, 2025. The area is usually home to a raucous block party for St. Fratty’s Day. CAL POLY Grand jury says SLO failed to manage rowdy fraternities near Cal Poly After the report was released, the Planning Commission revoked a third Cal Poly fraternity’s conditional use permit. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.The northern tower of the burned-out Templeton Feed & Grain building was brought down on July 8, 2025, leaving a pile of rubble where the iconic granary stood for decades on South Main Street. LOCAL 252 Remaining Templeton Feed & Grain tower crumbles to the ground All that remains at the site is a massive pile of rubble beside the the original white-concrete building from 1912. Go beyond the headlines with unlimited digital access $1.99 for 3 months To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.The Tribune mobile app To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. LOCAL PG&E outages knock out power to over 1,000 SLO County customers Both outages were reported Wednesday afternoon. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Monterey County firefighters Jonathan Davis, left, and Ryan Cahalan extinguish smoldering wood posts on a cattle fence along Soda Lake Road after the Madre Fire burned through the area on July 3, 2025. LOCAL 253 80,000-acre Madre Fire now more than 60% contained in SLO County Containment on the Madre Fire jumped in the latest report on Wednesday. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Gaw-Lai, a licensed endocrinologist, was the founder of California Diabetes and Hormone Specialists, Inc. in Arcadia, Pasadena Now reported. CALIFORNIA Husband killed wife, then torched home to ‘cover up the crime,’ CA officials say The husband was charged months after his wife’s death, prosecutors said. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Jurupa Valley’s AB Hernandez, second from left, shares the first-place podium spot with Jillene Wetteland, left, of Poly Long Beach and Lelani Laruelle of Monta Vista in a three-way tie during a medal ceremony for the high jump at the California high school track-and-field championships in Clovis on May 31, 2025. Hernandez, a 16-year-old transgender athlete, also shared first place in the triple jump. CALIFORNIA Trump sues California over decade-old sports law that lets trans athletes compete A legal expert said the DOJ’s position was “manufactured out of thin air.” 254 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Get the news you care about most delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for newsletters To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Newsletter selections from The Tribune To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. This email was sent to szion@slocity.org because you are signed up to receive Tribune Afternoon Headlines. If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, you may update your email preferences. We are unable to monitor replies to this email. Please contact customer service if you have any questions or concerns. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service Copyright © 2025 The Tribune. All Rights Reserved. 3940-7 Broad St. PMB 325, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 To help pr otect yo ur privacy, To help pr otect yo ur privacy, 255 From:Wallace, Christine Sent:Wednesday, July 9, 2025 3:03 PM To:STEVEN FERRARIO Subject:RE: 1621 McCollum Until 5pm. Thanks, CW From: STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:49 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 1621 McCollum I have to meet clients at 2:45, should be back to office by 4 and will try you then. How late are you working From: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:44 PM To: STEVEN FERRARIO < Subject: RE: 1621 McCollum I’m walking out now for a meeting. I’ll be back in about an hour, happy to chat then. My desk is 805-781-7186. Thanks, Christine From: STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:42 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 1621 McCollum I'm available now.. Give a call 805-215-3350 256 From: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:13 PM To: STEVEN FERRARIO < Subject: RE: 1621 McCollum Yes. I would like to speak with you about properties that have been identified as fraternity satellite houses. CW From: STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 12:31 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: 1621 McCollum Hi Christine, Did you try to reach out to me yesterday regarding 1621 McCollum which I manage? 257 From:STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent:Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:49 PM To:Wallace, Christine Subject:Re: 1621 McCollum I have to meet clients at 2:45, should be back to office by 4 and will try you then. How late are you working From: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:44 PM To: STEVEN FERRARIO < Subject: RE: 1621 McCollum I’m walking out now for a meeting. I’ll be back in about an hour, happy to chat then. My desk is 805-781-7186. Thanks, Christine From: STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:42 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 1621 McCollum I'm available now.. Give a call 805-215-3350 From: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:13 PM To: STEVEN FERRARIO < Subject: RE: 1621 McCollum Yes. I would like to speak with you about properties that have been identified as fraternity satellite houses. 258 CW From: STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 12:31 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: 1621 McCollum Hi Christine, Did you try to reach out to me yesterday regarding 1621 McCollum which I manage? 259 From:Wallace, Christine Sent:Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:45 PM To:STEVEN FERRARIO Subject:RE: 1621 McCollum I’m walking out now for a meeting. I’ll be back in about an hour, happy to chat then. My desk is 805-781-7186. Thanks, Christine From: STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:42 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 1621 McCollum I'm available now.. Give a call 805-215-3350 From: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:13 PM To: STEVEN FERRARIO < Subject: RE: 1621 McCollum Yes. I would like to speak with you about properties that have been identified as fraternity satellite houses. CW From: STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 12:31 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: 1621 McCollum Hi Christine, Did you try to reach out to me yesterday regarding 1621 McCollum which I manage? 260 264 From:STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent:Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:42 PM To:Wallace, Christine Subject:Re: 1621 McCollum I'm available now.. Give a call 805-215-3350 From: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:13 PM To: STEVEN FERRARIO < Subject: RE: 1621 McCollum Yes. I would like to speak with you about properties that have been identified as fraternity satellite houses. CW From: STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 12:31 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: 1621 McCollum Hi Christine, Did you try to reach out to me yesterday regarding 1621 McCollum which I manage? 268 From:Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent:Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:28 PM To:James, Dillon Subject:Re: Greek Life Meeting Let’s extend them another 30 minutes on the back end. Not all on our team will be able to stay but those who can will and we can add a third meeting as well if we need to. Thanks Dillon! Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 at 1:21 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, Following up on this. Thank you again! Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 2:18 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, I touched base with Whitney about next week's Greek life meeting. She mentioned that she would prefer both meetings to be 90 minutes rather than 1 hour. Would your team be available for an additional 30 minutes on either end of next week's meeting, as well as the second one on September 3? Thank you! Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant 269 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 4:29 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Great, thanks! Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 at 4:27 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Thank you! Just sent the update. Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 4:23 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting We’ll be in the admin building (01), room 409. Thanks! Courtney 270 From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Thursday, June 26, 2025 at 2:24 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, Sounds good—invite coming shortly. Could you confirm a good meeting location on campus? First meeting will be at City Hall. Thanks! Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 2:21 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting September 3rd at 3pm is the winner! Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:36 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting For the second meeting, here's when Whitney, Scott, Greg, and Timmi could meet next:  Monday, August 18, 9am or 10am  Wednesday, August 20, 4pm  Tuesday, August 26, 3pm or 4pm  Wednesday, September 3, 3pm We are about to enter the vacation madness season, hence the scattered availability on our end. Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant 271 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:31 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting That’s it! Thanks Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:30 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting You've got it. Confirming the CP attendees are:  You  Jo Campbell  Joy Pederson  Jason Mockford  Terrance Leshae Harris Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:27 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting 272 Please remove Elizabeth and add Terrance Leshae Harris tharris@calpoly.edu from the meeting invite. Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:25 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, Can you confirm a good meeting location for both of these? Or were you thinking of holding on at City Hall, one on- campus? Thanks again. Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:24 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Yes – let’s do that Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:20 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>, Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, This has been delayed because we have a scheduling conflict with the second meeting and I'm looking at a few options. If you'd like, I can send out an invitation for the first meeting, and you and I can separately connect to find another good date/time for the second meeting. Would that work for you? Thanks! 273 Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 12:59 PM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Dillon, Our team hasn’t seen these meetings on the calendar yet. Can you please send an invitation out? Courtney From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 at 10:28 AM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>, James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Greek Life Meeting Whoops! Thanks and sounds good. Greg From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:49 AM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting We were hoping for two meetings… Timmi and anyone else you think is relevant to the conversation is welcome. Thanks! Courtney From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 at 9:32 AM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>, James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Greek Life Meeting 274 Thanks, all. Let’s do the earlier date if possible. Can Timmi attend as well? Greg From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:22 AM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Yes please – do you have a room we can meet in or should we reserve a room at Cal Poly? In addition to myself, can you please invite: Jo Campbell jcampb33@calpoly.edu; Joy M. Pedersen jmpeders@calpoly.edu; Jason Mockford jmockfor@calpoly.edu; Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola eaielloc@calpoly.edu Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 at 5:37 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>, Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi all, It may take a bit of reshuffling of some internal meetings, but as of right now, it looks like everyone on this thread should be able to make the following two options:  July 16th, 2:00-3:00pm  July 31st, 10:00-11:00am Let me know if I should hold both of these times for everyone. Thank you! Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 5:28 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Cc: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, Thanks for reaching out and my apologies for the delay. I just needed to connect with folks on the City side. The meeting should include Whitney, Scott, Timmi and myself. I’m looping in Dylan from our team to compare schedules and get something on calendars. 275 Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. Greg From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 4:02 PM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Greek Life Meeting Hi Greg, Thank you for the brainstorm earlier on next steps in partnership around fraternities and sororities in our neighborhoods and CUPs. I know I took advantage of a call on a completely different topic! 뇤눎눐눑눒눏 Looping in Scott since CDD is one of his departments. I’d like to set up two meetings over the summer where staff on this issue from both institutions can come together and continue the conversation about creative solutions/ideas. These have been the participants in these meetings in the past on our end: Courtney Kienow Jo Campbell Joy Pedersen – new to meetings Jason Mockford Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola We are all available on the following dates/times: June 18th 8:30-9:45 July 16th 2-3pm July 23rd 9-10:15am July 31st 10-11am August 6th 9-11am I know Scott attended the last one and you’ve attended some of the ones in the past. Please let me know if two of these options can work for the appropriate members of your team. Warmly, Courtney Courtney Kienow pronouns she/hers (why is this important?) Director of Community Relations and Economic Development Office of the President Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA _____ office 805-756-6000 direct 805-756-6098 www.calpoly.edu 276 From:Wallace, Christine Sent:Wednesday, July 9, 2025 1:13 PM To:STEVEN FERRARIO Subject:RE: 1621 McCollum Yes. I would like to speak with you about properties that have been identified as fraternity satellite houses. CW From: STEVEN FERRARIO < Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 12:31 PM To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: 1621 McCollum Hi Christine, Did you try to reach out to me yesterday regarding 1621 McCollum which I manage? 277 From:Wooten, Eric Sent:Wednesday, July 9, 2025 10:19 AM To:City_Attorney Subject:SLO Tribune Frat Article This posted awhile ago. I have yet to read it. Grand jury finds SLO failed fraternity and noise management | San Luis Obispo Tribune Eric Wooten Paralegal City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E ewooten@slocity.org T 805.781.7139 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. 280 From:Petersen, Cecilia Sent:Wednesday, July 9, 2025 9:15 AM To:Greek Life Subject:Re: Fraternity and Sorority Fire Inspections Thank you for providing the contacts – I appreciate your help. In previous years, Cal Poly Greek Life has worked with each of the fraternities and sororities to coordinate and complete inspections within a week. We would like to follow the same approach this year and schedule inspections for all fraternity and sorority houses during a consolidated timeframe. Please let us know your availability and any requirements on your end to begin coordinating the schedule. We are currently looking at the third or fourth week of August. Our goal is to streamline the process and ensure all inspections are completed efficiently and on time. Looking forward to working with you on this. Cecilia Petersen Fire Inspector I Fire Department E CPeterse@slocity.org T 805.783.7773 C 805.550.9633 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Greek Life <greeklife@calpoly.edu> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 1:44 PM To: Petersen, Cecilia <CPeterse@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Fraternity and Sorority Fire Inspections Good afternoon, Our apologies, below are the additional contacts requested: Alpha Epsilon Pi - aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com Alpha Sigma Phi - president.cpalphasig@gmail.com Delta Sigma Phi - president.cpdeltachi@gmail.com Phi Delta Theta - phideltcalpolypres@gmail.com Pi Kappa Phi - archon.calpoly.pikappaphi@gmail.com Phi Sigma Kappa - pskslo.president@gmail.com Sigma Phi Epsilon - president.calpolysigep@gmail.com Sigma Pi - etadeltasage@gmail.com Theta Chi - president.cpthetachi@gmail.com 281 Zeta Beta Tau - president@zbtcalpoly.org Best, FSL Staff From: Petersen, Cecilia <CPeterse@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 at 2:22 PM To: Greek Life <greeklife@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Fraternity and Sorority Fire Inspections Hi, Thank you for sending that information over. We have the below fraternities/sororities on our list if you could please provide the additional contact information that would be very helpful! Alpha Epsilon Pi Alpha Sigma Pi Delta Sigma Pi Pi Delta Theta Pi Kappa Phi Phi Sigma Kappa Sigma Phi Epsilon Sigma Pi Theta Chi Zeta Beta Tau Thank you, Cecilia Petersen Fire Inspector I The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Fire Department E CPeterse@slocity.org T 805.783.7773 C 805.550.9633 slocity.org The link ed image can not be displaye d. T… The link ed image can not be displaye d. T… The link ed image can not be displaye d. T… The link ed image can not be displaye d. T… The link ed image can not be displaye d. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Greek Life <greeklife@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:09 PM To: Petersen, Cecilia <CPeterse@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Fraternity and Sorority Fire Inspections Here is the contact list requested! Please let us know if you need anything else from us. Best, Alpha Chi Omega axo.president.cp@gmail.com Alpha Omicron Pi aoii.president.chipsi@gmail.com 282 Alpha Phi sloaphipres@gmail.com Chi Omega chiopres.cp@gmail.com Delta Gamma dg.president.calpoly@gmail.com Gamma Phi Beta gphibpresident@gmail.com Kappa Alpha Theta cpthetapresident@gmail.com Kappa Kappa Gamma kkg.president.calpoly@gmail.com Sigma Kappa sigmakappaslo@gmail.com Beta Theta Pi cpbeta.president@gmail.com Delta Upsilon ducalpolypresident@gmail.com Lambda Chi Alpha slolca.alpha@gmail.com Pi Kappa Phi archon.calpoly.pikappaphi@gmail.com Sigma Nu Cpsnupresident@gmail.com From: Petersen, Cecilia <CPeterse@slocity.org> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 at 12:49 PM To: Greek Life <greeklife@calpoly.edu> Subject: Fraternity and Sorority Fire Inspections Good afternoon, I hope this message finds you well. It's time to begin scheduling the annual fire and life safety inspections for each of the fraternity and sorority houses. To start coordinating inspection times, could you please forward me a current list of contacts for each house? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Cecilia Petersen Fire Inspector I The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Fire Department E CPeterse@slocity.org T 805.783.7773 C 805.550.9633 slocity.org The link ed image can not be disp laye d. T… The link ed image can not be disp laye d. T… The link ed image can not be disp laye d. T… The link ed image can not be disp laye d. T… The link ed image can not be disp laye d. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 283 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Tuesday, July 8, 2025 4:58 PM To:Carol Florence Cc:Emily Ewer Subject:RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Hi Carol, Understood. We are looking at October 21 as the date with availability to consider the appeal, please have your clients plan accordingly. Regarding Parker – I understand your concern, as soon as we regroup and have an agreed upon internal path forward I will let you know. Thanks, Timmi From: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 4:38 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Afternoon, Timmi! My clients won’t be back from summer break/work obligations until mid-September, and their desire is to have a “full press court” at the hearing. I know that they would appreciate the accommodation. Feels like a long way off, especially since we just started summer! Quick thought…staff did an excellent job on their reports recommending amendments to the various fraternity’s CUPs, which apparently is how this has been handled in the very recent past. If the PC didn’t feel like they could make the appropriate findings for the amendments, how will they be able to make the same findings for a “new” CUP? Just asking… RE: Parker – I’ve expressed my sentiments below, so I am hopeful that the representations made by the former CBO will be honored. I’ll will admit that I am more than a little concerned for our clients. As always, C.M. Florence, AICP Principal Planner OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805.541.4509 I D: 805.548.1561 I M: 805.459.9972 www.oasisassoc.com 284 From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 3:32 PM To: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Hi Carol, thank you. I do have to ask, now that you are involved, if September 2 is still off the table (I imagine it still is, but please confirm). I have not heard anything about other fraternities appealing their respective revocations. Regarding Parker, I have an internal meeting set up to discuss next steps and then we will let you know where we have landed. Thanks, Timmi From: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:01 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Good afternoon! Appreciate your response, Timmi, and the extension of time to submit additional information. If it helps, the clients are fine with a Council hearing after September 2nd. In addition, can you advise me whether appeals were also lodged by Sigma Nu and/or Delta Upsilon? On an unrelated note, can we discuss 2146 Parker Street/ARCH-0809-2024, please. I have recently been made aware that Mike Loew is no longer with the city, which concerns me, as he had been coordinating with Building and SLOFD staff on a few of the incomplete comments, in addition to championing the change from the previously lodged Moderate Development to a Minor Use Permit. I am hopeful that he shared his thoughts with you, as we had been waiting for a resolution from him. For your information, we received a follow up email from Walter in June that the application would be classified as “inactive” on August 4, 2025. Since we started discussing the project with you originally, I am hopeful that you can assist us. Thanks, in advance, for the consideration and response. As always, C.M. Florence, AICP Principal Planner OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805.541.4509 I D: 805.548.1561 I M: 805.459.9972 www.oasisassoc.com 285 From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 11:42 AM To: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Hi Carol, Thank you for the email. I will extend the time for submittal of information for consideration in a staff report to July 11. We are very challenged with finding an alternative time for the Council meeting, I do not yet have a date if the fraternity cannot do September 2. As soon as I have a tentative date I will let you know, Thank you, Timmi From: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 12:06 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Importance: High Good Morning, Community Development Director Tway! We have very recently been retained by Delta Chi to assist them with their appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke their conditional use permit. Based upon your recent email – June 24, 2025 to the current president, Chris Green, we are respectfully requesting additional time to prepare a more robust response to the details behind the appeal request. With that said, we assume that the City Council hearing would also be delayed to, perhaps, a later date in September. We will be coordinating with our clients this week and hope to have a date certain to submit the additional information. Will advise you, accordingly. Please contact us should you have any questions and/or if you have additional information to share. Thank you, as always, for your time, consideration, and accommodation. As always, C.M. Florence, AICP Principal Planner OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805.541.4509 I D: 805.548.1561 I M: 805.459.9972 www.oasisassoc.com 287 From:James, Dillon Sent:Tuesday, July 8, 2025 2:19 PM To:Courtney Leigh Kienow Subject:Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, I touched base with Whitney about next week's Greek life meeting. She mentioned that she would prefer both meetings to be 90 minutes rather than 1 hour. Would your team be available for an additional 30 minutes on either end of next week's meeting, as well as the second one on September 3? Thank you! Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 4:29 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Great, thanks! Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 at 4:27 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Thank you! Just sent the update. Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant 288 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 4:23 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting We’ll be in the admin building (01), room 409. Thanks! Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Thursday, June 26, 2025 at 2:24 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, Sounds good—invite coming shortly. Could you confirm a good meeting location on campus? First meeting will be at City Hall. Thanks! Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 2:21 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting 289 September 3rd at 3pm is the winner! Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:36 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting For the second meeting, here's when Whitney, Scott, Greg, and Timmi could meet next:  Monday, August 18, 9am or 10am  Wednesday, August 20, 4pm  Tuesday, August 26, 3pm or 4pm  Wednesday, September 3, 3pm We are about to enter the vacation madness season, hence the scattered availability on our end. Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:31 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting That’s it! Thanks Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:30 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting You've got it. Confirming the CP attendees are:  You  Jo Campbell  Joy Pederson  Jason Mockford  Terrance Leshae Harris 290 Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:27 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Please remove Elizabeth and add Terrance Leshae Harris tharris@calpoly.edu from the meeting invite. Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:25 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, Can you confirm a good meeting location for both of these? Or were you thinking of holding on at City Hall, one on- campus? Thanks again. Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:24 PM 291 To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Yes – let’s do that Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:20 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>, Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, This has been delayed because we have a scheduling conflict with the second meeting and I'm looking at a few options. If you'd like, I can send out an invitation for the first meeting, and you and I can separately connect to find another good date/time for the second meeting. Would that work for you? Thanks! Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 12:59 PM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Dillon, Our team hasn’t seen these meetings on the calendar yet. Can you please send an invitation out? Courtney From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 at 10:28 AM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>, James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> 292 Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Greek Life Meeting Whoops! Thanks and sounds good. Greg From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:49 AM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting We were hoping for two meetings… Timmi and anyone else you think is relevant to the conversation is welcome. Thanks! Courtney From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 at 9:32 AM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>, James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Greek Life Meeting Thanks, all. Let’s do the earlier date if possible. Can Timmi attend as well? Greg From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:22 AM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Yes please – do you have a room we can meet in or should we reserve a room at Cal Poly? In addition to myself, can you please invite: Jo Campbell jcampb33@calpoly.edu; Joy M. Pedersen jmpeders@calpoly.edu; Jason Mockford jmockfor@calpoly.edu; Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola eaielloc@calpoly.edu Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 at 5:37 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>, Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi all, It may take a bit of reshuffling of some internal meetings, but as of right now, it looks like everyone on this thread should be able to make the following two options:  July 16th, 2:00-3:00pm  July 31st, 10:00-11:00am Let me know if I should hold both of these times for everyone. Thank you! 293 Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 5:28 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Cc: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, Thanks for reaching out and my apologies for the delay. I just needed to connect with folks on the City side. The meeting should include Whitney, Scott, Timmi and myself. I’m looping in Dylan from our team to compare schedules and get something on calendars. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. Greg From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 4:02 PM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Greek Life Meeting Hi Greg, Thank you for the brainstorm earlier on next steps in partnership around fraternities and sororities in our neighborhoods and CUPs. I know I took advantage of a call on a completely different topic! 뇤눎눐눑눒눏 Looping in Scott since CDD is one of his departments. I’d like to set up two meetings over the summer where staff on this issue from both institutions can come together and continue the conversation about creative solutions/ideas. These have been the participants in these meetings in the past on our end: Courtney Kienow Jo Campbell Joy Pedersen – new to meetings Jason Mockford Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola We are all available on the following dates/times: June 18th 8:30-9:45 July 16th 2-3pm July 23rd 9-10:15am 294 July 31st 10-11am August 6th 9-11am I know Scott attended the last one and you’ve attended some of the ones in the past. Please let me know if two of these options can work for the appropriate members of your team. Warmly, Courtney Courtney Kienow pronouns she/hers (why is this important?) Director of Community Relations and Economic Development Office of the President Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA _____ office 805-756-6000 direct 805-756-6098 www.calpoly.edu 295 From:CityClerk Sent:Monday, July 7, 2025 5:00 PM To:kathie walker Subject:cc Walker - Tassajara/Ramona Neighborhood / Please Act to Protect All Neighborhoods BCC: Council All Kathie Walker, Thank you for taking the time to contact City Council on this topic. This is a policy related issue for the City Council’s consideration and your message has been provided directly to them. City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 From: kathie walker < Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:45 PM To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Tassajara/Ramona Neighborhood / Please Act to Protect All Neighborhoods Dear City Councilmembers, The quality of life issues related to illegal fraternity operations have gravely affected the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods near campus. Over the past few years, the illegal fraternities have spread to other single-family residential neighborhoods further away, west of Santa Rosa Street, including Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF) and the Ramona/Tassajara neighborhood. It is probably not a coincidence that long- term residents/families are selling their homes and leaving the neighborhood. One family on Ramona Drive complained about an illegal fraternity behind them at 311 Foothill Blvd, which was identified in Cal Poly's AB 524 report as holding fraternity events. The property owner received a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations at 311 Foothill, but the noise from the fraternity continued. Last year, that family on Ramona Drive sold their home and moved away because the noise in the neighborhood was too much to take. A different family living on S. Tassajara reached out to RQN last year because Pi Kappa Phi is operating behind/diagonal from their home at 66 S. Rafael, and constant noise and disruptive fraternity events for several years have made their lives miserable. The family on S. Tassajara and the historic architectural renovation of 296 their home were featured in SLO Life Magazine in early 2019, before the fraternity moved in behind them. Here is a link to the article, "As One", pages 54 - 62 https://issuu.com/slolifemagazine/docs/slolifefebmar2019lr. Even before the residents on S. Tassajara contacted RQN, I sent documentation to the City that showed Pi Kappa Phi was illegally operating at 66 S. Rafael, with social media posts that advertised fraternity-related events specifically at 66 S. Rafael since Fall 2022. The City did not take any action. Pi Kappa Phi is still operating at that address, including rush events during the 2024-2025 school year that were documented with video, with large Greek letters in their driveway during the event. I have continued to send documentation of fraternity events advertised on social media to the City without any resolution. There is also a significant history of noise complaints for 66 S. Rafael. Last week, a house occupied by a family was listed for sale at 53 S. Rafael, shown below in the black box. This house is across the street diagonally from Pi Kappa Psi's illegal fraternity house at 66 Rafael (red box, middle). Last year, another fraternity moved in directly behind 53 Rafael at 311 Del Mar Court (red box, far left) and has held fraternity-related events there. Another fraternity, Phi Gamma Delta or FIJI, is operating illegally, a block away at 451 Ramona Drive (red box, far right). When fraternities illegally operate in neighborhoods, it starts with one or two. If the City doesn't stop them, more move into the neighborhood because there is an implicit message that it's okay, because other fraternities are also operating nearby. That's how the Alta Vista neighborhood became overrun with dozens of illegal fraternities, and Albert Drive has become the new Greek Row. Fraternity operations are not compatible with the lifestyle of families living in a residential neighborhood, and they are moving away. "Families" is defined broadly, including all sorts of groups who would traditionally live in a neighborhood with the expectation that they are not living next to or within earshot of a fraternity house, which is the equivalent of a downtown bar & nightclub moving into the neighborhood. There are constant disruptions from extremely noisy parties, increased traffic of 100+ loud, often intoxicated guests coming and going, vandalism, and other nuisances such as trespassing, vomiting, and using private yards as a toilet. 297 The City, in its response to the Grand Jury on 6/20/2025, cited repeated attempts to work with Cal Poly to gain compliance, including the efforts listed below, which have not worked. I have included some additional items, in italics, for context:  January 10, 2024: City staff met with Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the complaints received regarding Fraternities and Sororities.  April 10, 2024: Follow-up meeting with Assistant Director of Fraternity & Sorority Life regarding the City's response to unpermitted Fraternities.  April 16, 2024: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities.  July 2024: Cal Poly edited its online AB 524 Reports and erased the addresses of all fraternity events for the 2023-2024 academic year.  August 2024: Community Development Director met with Cal Poly leadership to discuss the issue of Fraternities/Sororities and land use requirements for houses.  October 2024: Fraternities held fraternity rush events at their illegal fraternity house locations in R1/R2 neighborhoods, and the dates, times, and addresses of some of those illegal fraternity events were sent to the City, copied at the bottom of this email. The fraternities continued to hold fraternity parties and other events at their illegal fraternity houses throughout the academic year, and not a single fraternity ceased operations.  January 12, 2025: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities.  January 17 - 26, 2025: Fraternities ignored the City's presentation and held fraternity rush events at their illegal fraternity house locations in R1/R2 neighborhoods. Code Enforcement staff responded to addresses holding rush events, but when they approached some fraternity members at a check-in table with laptops in the front yard, the fraternity members denied that they were holding a rush event. Code Enforcement staff noted they were wearing shirts with Greek letters. Almost immediately, the fraternity members alerted other members at illegal fraternity houses in the neighborhood, which prompted other fraternities to move their check-in tables and laptops behind their fences. They then refused to answer the door to City staff, who heard the events in the backyards but did not cite them.  March 4, 2025: Meeting with City staff and Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the ongoing issues regarding Fraternities and Sororities and the upcoming "St. Fratty's Day" event. Cal Poly leadership and fraternities have ignored the City and have shown that they are not going to cooperate to solve this problem. The Grand Jury made clear that the City has not enforced its zoning ordinances and municipal codes, and ver 50 illegal fraternities have continued to operate illegally. Even more have been established in the neighborhoods over the past two years. In January 2025, I wrote to the City, including Christine Dietrick, and sent information about a case about 30 years ago when the City of SLO prosecuted a fraternity for operating without a use permit. I wanted Ms. Dietrick to use the same strategy to bring the most egregious violators into compliance. Nothing ever happened. In case you believe the situation is exaggerated because we are older residents, I encourage you to read the correspondence and listen to the 6/25/2025 testimony to the Planning Commission from younger residents near 298 the Delta Upsilon fraternity house at 720 Foothill Blvd. A young property manager representing 28 residents of an apartment (1/3 college students and 2/3 working adults), and another young resident living nearby, spoke about the non-stop disruptive noise, lack of cooperation, and property damage they have dealt with from the fraternity members and their guests. They described what we live with constantly during the academic year. The difference is that Delta Upsilon was permitted and is only one fraternity house, while our neighborhood has over 30 illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternities. We are literally surrounded by numerous illegal fraternities, and cannot rest or sleep on weekends during the academic year. We have relied on you to solve the problem. I've been sending videos since Fall 2021, and the situation has not improved! Below is a link to some testimony from younger folks at the Planning Commission hearing on June 25, 2025: Planning Commission 6_25_2025 testimony.mp4 The constant stress and lack of sleep are EXTREMELY taxing on the mental and physical well-being of those living near the illegal fraternities. The younger folks who testified in the link above, confirmed the constant noise "is far more than an annoyance. It's a violaiton of their quiet enjoyment, and directly affects their health, well- being and livihood." It is devastating to the health and welfare of those living nearby! You are our elected representatives and have the authority to direct the City Attorney to get the addresses from Cal Poly by filing a Writ of Mandamus with the SLO Superior Court. I am asking you to please do that. With the addresses, the City can bring the property owners into compliance with the law to restore our neighborhoods so people, including college students, can rest and sleep. Please ask the City Manager and City Attorney to take the necessary steps to get the addresses and solve this enormous problem that is worsening each year. In 2024, I prepared a draft Writ of Mandate and Points and Authorities Memorandum to compel Cal Poly to publish the addresses of its illegal fraternities. I am a paralegal and not a lawyer, plus I have not practiced for a long time, so the draft is not great, but it gives you an important timeline of events and history related to Cal Poly's fraternities. (Attached) Cal Poly's responses to my public records requests changed after each request I made, with a different excuse, and they never provided any information. The City can compel the release of the addresses by filing a Writ or similar action. Please take meaningful action to identify the illegal fraternities on file with Cal Poly's Greek Life office, and stop the illegal fraternity operations to restore our neighborhoods for the health and welfare of many residents impacted by illegal fraternities. Thank you, Kathie Walker Fall Rush Events at Illegal Fraternity Houses (The list only includes those that were documented.) Friday 10/4/2024: 1684-1688 Mill Street -R2 (Delta Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 281 Albert Drive -R1 (Delta Upsilon) MAIN SATELLITE HOUSE – It has a permitted house at 720 E. Foothill Blvd 248-250 Grand Ave -R1 (Theta Chi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE WITH 1844 MCCOLLUM (Shared Yards) 281 Hathway Ave -R1 (Kappa Sigma) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 348-350 Hathway Ave - R2 (Phi Sigma Kappa) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1525 Slack St -R1 (Sigma Pi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 2090 Hays - R1 (Sigma Epsilon) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1218-1220 Bond St - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1229 Fredericks - R1 (Phi Gamma Delta aka FIJI) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 654 & 658 Graves -R4 (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE Saturday 10/5/2024: 654 & 658 Graves -R4 (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 299 299 Albert - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) 12 Hathway - R1 (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1841 Slack St - R1 (Sigma Nu) 66 Rafael - R1 (Pi Kappa Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE IN THE CITY 1820 Hope - R1 (Theta Chi) Main Chapter House last year 2023-2024 322 Hathway - R2 (Kappa Sigma) 1908 Loomis - R1 (Phi Sigma Kappa) 1276 Bond St - R1 (Phi Kappa Psi) 589 Cuesta Drive - R1 (Delta Sigma Phi) 1555 Slack St - R1 (Sigma Pi) Sunday 10/6/2024 237 Albert Dr - R1 (Phi Kappa Psi) 124 Stenner - R4 (Sigma Pi) 171 Orange - R1 (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1646 Fredericks St - R1 (Zeta Beta Tau) 1868 Loomis -R1 (Delta Upsilon) 260 Chaplin - R1 (Phi Delta Theta) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1632 Fredericks - R1 (Sigma Nu) 255 Chaplin - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) 300 From:Clint Oram < Sent:Monday, July 7, 2025 3:55 PM To:Patino, Mallory Cc:Terry Reeves Subject:Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory, Thanks for your time earlier today. We very much appreciate it. We have decided to NOT pursue an appeal but rather focus our efforts on working with the undergraduate chapter to ensure we do not have these noise issues in the future. Our thanks to you and your colleagues for standing by to working with us on a remote application. We will be in touch. Best regards, Clint From: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Date: Monday, July 7, 2025 at 11:07 AM To: Cc: Terry Reeves < Subject: RE: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Clint, below are answers (in purple) to your questions. I look forward to chatting more today so that I can expand/explain a bit more. We understand today is the last day to submit an appeal. In your email below, you had written that if we want to submit an appeal remotely that we can email you the form and pay over the phone. Please confirm that is possible today. Yes, today is the last to file the appeal. You would need to call to pay the appeal fee with the Finance Department first. Let me know if you decide to appeal and I will connect you with the Finance team via email regarding the phone payment. Then you would need to submit the Appeal Form and any additional appeal materials to the City Clerk’s Office with the receipt that you paid the appeal fee. The City Clerk’s email is cityclerk@slocity.org; you can include or CC me on the submittal. You would need to have this complete before 5pm today. We would also like to understand better what happens if we do or do not appeal. Some questions we have: 1/ If we do appeal: 1.1/ when would this be brought before the city council? The hearing date would not be set until an appeal is filed. An appeal likely would not be heard by City Council until this fall, or later. 1.2/ during the appeal process, would we be required to comply with whatever steps are necessary when the use permit is withdrawn? If you file an appeal, the CUP would continue (because a final decision will have not been made due to the appeal being submitted). 1.3/ what guidance can you give us to be best prepared during the appeal process? The appeal process would be you preparing for your hearing with City Council. Planning staff will prepare a response/staff report based on what the appeal filing includes. 2/ If we do not appeal: 2.1/ what are those steps we would be required to take to comply with the revocation of the use permit? 301 With the revocation of the use permit, the site is no longer permitted to operate as a fraternity organization, effective upon adoption of the Resolution (6/25/25). The site may be able to continue residential land uses, as allowed in the R-4 zone under the Municipal Code. 2.2/ what is the timeline for those steps? The Resolution is effective immediately upon being adopted (6/25/25). Also, please send us the final copy of the resolution passed by the planning commission to revoke the use permit. The Resolution is undergoing final processing (signatures and publishing) this morning. I will have the final copy to you shortly. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Clint Oram < Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 9:33 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory, My name is Clint Oram and I am with Terry Reeves and the Alpha Upsilon Delta Upsilon Alumni Corporation, the landlords of 720 Foothill Blvd. At this stage, we are looking to gather as much information as possible. We have been reviewing the use permit revocation and trying to understand what next steps we have available to us. We understand today is the last day to submit an appeal. In your email below, you had written that if we want to submit an appeal remotely that we can email you the form and pay over the phone. Please confirm that is possible today. We would also like to understand better what happens if we do or do not appeal. Some questions we have: 1/ If we do appeal: 1.1/ when would this be brought before the city council? 1.2/ during the appeal process, would we be required to comply with whatever steps are necessary when the use permit is withdrawn? 1.3/ what guidance can you give us to be best prepared during the appeal process? 2/ If we do not appeal: 2.1/ what are those steps we would be required to take to comply with the revocation of the use permit? 2.2/ what is the timeline for those steps? 302 Also, please send us the final copy of the resolution passed by the planning commission to revoke the use permit. Are you available for a call today to review these questions? Regards, Clint Oram On Tuesday, July 1, 2025 at 04:31:35 PM PDT, Terry Reeves <reevest81@gmail.com> wrote: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Date: Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 3:43 PM Subject: RE: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill To: Terry Reeves < Cc: Juan Fernandez < , John Hatfield < , Wade Spriggs < Hi Terry, My apologies on the delay in reaching out to you! I was actually just working on this draft to reach out to you when I got your email. Last week on June 25, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution revoking the Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity (Delta Upsilon) at 720 Foothill. We are processing the final resolution, and I will send on a copy once signed. There will be no changes to the content from the draft version that was published with the agenda. This resolution (decision) may be appealed to the City Council. To appeal, you must complete and file the Appeal to the City Council form with the City Clerk’s Office within 10 calendar days of this rendered decision (by end of business day, Monday July 7, since day 10 is on a weekend). The required filing fee ($2,662.26) must accompany the appeal form. You can pay the appeal fee at the Finance Counter, which is temporarily located at 919 Palm Street, in person from Monday-Thursday, 8am-4pm. If you need to pay over the phone, you can let me know and I’ll coordinate phone payment. Information about the appeal procedures is on the City's Website here (refer to the ‘Appeal to the City Council’ section). 303 If you would like to pursue applying for a new Conditional Use Permit, I have attached here the application checklist of items required to apply (note: physical copies of plans are no longer required). You can apply via email by submitting the application materials to planning@slocity.org. Upon submittal of an application, Planning staff would set up an application and send you an invoice for the required application filing fee ($11,260.55). The invoice would be sent with instructions on how to pay online. If you preferred to apply and pay in person, let me know and I can provide details for days and times when our Planning counter is open to the public. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 3:41 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. The outcome was totally expected, but disappointing all the same. Can you help us understand our appeal options? Thanks. On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 5:20 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry, 304 The Planning Commission Staff Report and associated attachments are now published and accessible online. You can download the pdfs here: https://pub- slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=0d341b53-47b3-4741-9491- b900ccf4c5d9&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English. I will be out of the office the rest of this week, but be back working on Monday afternoon. If you have any questions you’d like answers on before next week, please reach out to Rachel Cohen at rcohen@slocity.org. Otherwise, let me know if you have any questions or concerns before Wednesday morning. If you have a presentation you’d like to present, please send it to me before 3pm on Wednesday. You may submit agenda correspondence up until 3pm on Wednesday, see the City’s website for how to comment here: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and- minutes/planning-commission. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:26 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. Thank you for the chat as well. It's fine to list me as the representative. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 3:16 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: 305 Hi Terry and Juan, Thanks for the chat earlier today. I wanted to let you know I found the Draft Resolutions that are going on consent to Planning Commission tomorrow night for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s revocations. You can access the drafts by clicking the paper clip icons on the item here: https://pub- slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=711b6ba9-e00c-4566-ab59- 02a00d530d05&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=10&Tab=attachments . The language for my draft resolution will be similar to these, and if edits are made tomorrow night, my draft will likely reflect the final adopted Resolutions. One question regarding your review (USE-0334-2025), and sorry if you answered this already and I missed it – Would you like me to list Terry Reeves (Alumni Corporation President) as the representative on the agenda staff report? Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:10 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill That would be perfect- thanks! Thanks, /juan 306 On Jun 5, 2025, at 14:08, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, We prefer to use our City Teams meetings. I can send you the link shortly. Would you like me to invite everyone who is on this email thread? Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:06 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Invite sent for Tuesday at 11am. Do you prefer to send a SLO City Zoom or shall I set it up? Thanks, /juan 307 On Jun 5, 2025, at 13:58, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, I am available for a call or video meeting next Tuesday from 8:30am- 2pm, or Wednesday from 8:30am-1 pm. Let me know if there is a time during those windows that would work for you. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006 .png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 1:56 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory- Thank you for your proactive note with links. Can we schedule a debrief with you for early next week to discuss our June 25 CUP? I’ve viewed some of the video of the May 28 hearing and it would be good to get your input as we prepare our presentation to the Planning Commission. Can you please suggest a few times next week that we can meet? 308 /juan On Jun 3, 2025, at 16:29, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John and Wade, I wanted to touch base on a few things regarding the upcoming USE-0334-2025 Planning Commission (PC) hearing. 1. As the applicant, you will be allowed to speak for 10 minutes during the PC meeting on 6/25. Please let me now if you would like to utilize this speaking window, and if yes, who the speaker will be. 2. Who would you like me to list as the applicant representative? Previous fraternities have generally listed the sitting chapter president, but it’s up to you if you would like an alumni member, or if you’d like multiple names included. 3. The PC hearings for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s CUP re-reviews were held on 5/28. Though staff presented a recommendation to modify the CUP with revised conditions of approval, the Commission decided to revoke both fraternity’s use permits. The Resolution will not be adopted until the 6/11 PC meeting since staff did not prepare a draft Resolution for revocation ahead of the PC meeting. a. Based on this outcome straying from the other two more recent reviews (from late 2024), I will not be making a recommendation on behalf of staff for modification or revocation of the CUP for your re-review. I am still drafting the staff report, but it will present the project facts and list the alternatives PC may choose, which are 1. Modification of use permit with updated conditions of approval, 2. Revocation of use permit, or 3. 309 Continuance of review to future PC meeting date. I will have two draft Resolutions ready as attachments to my staff report, one for modification and one for revocation, in hopes that, based on their decision, PC will be able to adopt the Resolution the same night of the hearing. b. If you interested in reviewing the 5/28 PC meeting, the agenda, staff report, and minutes (no resolution yet though) can be found in these archives:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/Browse.aspx?id=26297&dbid=0&repo= CityClerk. c. You can watch the entirety of the 5/28 PC meeting here:https://www.youtube.com/live/avwDf oK3syU?si=0HUh_66DQiJAKQpp. From around 7 minutes to 1 hour, 45 minutes relates to the fraternity CUP re-reviews. If you have any questions about the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting, or your upcoming hearing, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005. png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications From: John Hatfield < Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 9:24 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Wade Spriggs < Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill +Terry Reeves, incoming Alumni Corporation President 310 Mallory, appreciate you sending this all over. It is very helpful. We were all finally able to line up our schedules and 6/25 works best for us. If we can put that date on the books, we'd appreciate it. Looking forward to being in SLO next month. Thank you, John Hatfield On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 10:31 AM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Wade, My apologies for the delay in following up after our meeting. I set up the application for the re-review of your existing Conditional Use Permit to have a fraternity house at 720 Foothill (new application number: USE- 0334-2025). I have attached here a copy of your current use permit, which will be modified/updated through this re-review process. As I mentioned I would provide, below are links to two different fraternity use permit reviews that were recently processed.  Alpha Epsilon Pi, re-review of existing use permit o Staff Report for Planning Commission (PC) Meeting, agenda item 4a for re- review of existing use permit: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=201304&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk o PC Resolution, approval of modifications to existing use permit:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=202053&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk  Lambda Chi Alpha, review of new use permit 311 o Staff Report for PC Meeting, agenda item 4a for new use permit application:https://opengov.slocity.org/W ebLink/Browse.aspx?id=194681&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk o PC Resolution, approval of use permit: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=195337&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk o Staff Report for City Council (CC) Meeting, agenda item 6b for appeal of PC use permit approval: https://opengov.slocity.org/We bLink/DocView.aspx?id=200405&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk o CC Resolution, upholding PC approval of use permit:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=200865&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk o Appellant presentation available in the CC 10-15-24 agenda folder: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLin k/browse.aspx?id=200395&dbid=0&repo =CityClerk The updates we will be recommending to the Planning Commission will be very similar to what was approved for AEPi and Lambda. I am moving forward with re- reviewing two other fraternity use permits at the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting. We discussed the possibility of reviewing your use permit at the same time as the others on 5/28, or by itself at the 6/11 Planning Commission meeting. If neither of those options work, 6/25 would be the next available date. Please let me know which review date would be best for you. If you would like to make it on the 5/28 meeting agenda, I would need to know asap. I will have a draft of the staff report and proposed resolution available for your review at least one week ahead of whichever date we schedule for the PC meeting. I may be in touch in the next few weeks if I have any questions while working on the staff report and resolution recommendation. Let me know if you have any questions for me! Cheers, 312 Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image00 5.png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications -- John Hatfield ( -- Terry -- Terry -- Terry 313 From:Webb, Donré Sent:Monday, July 7, 2025 11:59 AM To:Patino, Mallory Subject:RE: Resolution PC-1106-2025 ready for signature (USE-0334-2025) Attachments:PC-1106-2025 (720 and 726 Foothill - Revocation USE-0334-2025).pdf PC is attached! I will upload to EnerGov and LaserFiche later today. Thank you! – Donré From: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 11:04 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Webb, Donré <DWebb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Resolution PC-1106-2025 ready for signature (USE-0334-2025) Signed – thanks! From: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 10:06 AM To: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Cc: Webb, Donré <DWebb@slocity.org> Subject: Resolution PC-1106-2025 ready for signature (USE-0334-2025) Hi Tyler, the Resolution from 6/25/25 PC meeting is ready for your signature. See word document here: PC1106- 2025 Resolution - Revocation (USE-0334-2025).docx. (Folder: USE-0334-2025 (720 Foothill) - Delta Upsilon Re-review). Let me know if you need anything else from me. Donré, can you let me know when the PDF is ready so I can send to the applicants? Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications RESOLUTION NO. PC-1106-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REVOKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY AT 720 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. WHEREAS, on April 10, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo approved a Use Permit to allow a fraternity (Delta Upsilon) at 720 and 726 Foothill Boulevard (Resolution No. 5054-91 (1991 Series)); and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2009, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo revised a Use Permit to allow a fraternity (Delta Upsilon) at 720 Foothill Boulevard (Resolution No. 5527-09 (2009 Series)); and WHEREAS, the City received complaints, and, between September 2024 and June 2025, the Police Department issued five citations relating to noise violations at the property (one was successfully appealed); and WHEREAS, Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation on January 29, 2025, and Administrative Citations on February 14 and March 19, 2025, relating to the multiple, verified violations of the existing Use Permit; and WHEREAS, in order to grant a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find, among other things, that the establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use (SLOMC 17.110.070(A)(5)); and WHEREAS, revocation of an existing Conditional Use Permit is appropriate if the Planning Commission cannot make one or more findings of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.110 upon review of the permit due to violations thereof (SLOMC 17.102.020); and WHEREAS, Condition No. 13 of Use Permit U 36-09 requires Planning Commission re-review if complaints are received by the City, at which time the Planning Commission could add, delete, or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on June 25, 2025, for the re-review of the Conditional Use Permit and to consider the continuation of the fraternity at 720 Foothill Boulevard, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-0334- 2025, Delta Upsilon, applicant; and Resolution No. PC-1106-25 720 & 726 Foothill Blvd. Page 2 WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was provided at the time and in the manner required by, including publication on June 12, 2025, in the New Times newspaper of a legal ad for the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo considered all evidence, including testimony of the applicant, public comment, and recommendations by staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Recitals stated above are incorporated herein as Findings of the Planning Commission. In revoking the Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Municipal Code Section17.102.020(C)(7), and without prejudice, the Planning Commission additionally finds: 1. The current use is not consistent with Fraternity regulations of Municipal Code Section 17.86.130 because: a. The fraternity has been repeatedly cited for violations of the City’s Noise Ordinance. b. Since September 2024, the Police have issued five (5) citations for noise violations at the property, one of which was successfully appealed. A couple of these citations occurred after the property was served with a Notice of Violation of the Conditional Use Permit on January 29, 2025, which provided notice of the recommendation to review the use permit to the Deputy Director of Community Development. c. The maximum number of people on site exceeded the limit established by the Conditional Use Permit (21 people), as noted by the Police Officer that issued a citation for a noise violation on February 27, 2025. d. The fraternity has failed to apply for special event permits or parking and transportation plans as required by their Conditional Use Permit, despite hosting an event on February 27, 2025, which exceeded the routine gathering capacity limits of the Permit. 2. For the reasons stated above, the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the current use is not compatible with residential uses in the vicinity. The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code Section17.110.070(A)(3) cannot be made. Resolution No. PC-1106-25 720 & 726 Foothill Blvd. Page 3 3. For the reasons stated above, the continued use of the property as a fraternity under the Conditional Use Permit is not appropriate for the subject location, is incompatible with the neighborhood, and will be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity . The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code Section 17.110.070(A)(5) cannot be made. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit may have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.) SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby REVOKES the Conditional Use Permit U 36-09, previously issued to 720 Foothill Boulevard for use as a fraternity, based on the Findings stated above . Any subsequent application to establish a subsequent Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity at the location shall be subject to all requirements of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to Section 17.86.130 and Chapter 17.110. On motion by Commissioner Cooley, seconded by Commissioner Jorgensen, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cooley, Jorgensen, Kahn, and Munoz-Morris, Vice Chair Tolle, and Chair Houghton NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sheryl Flores The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of June 2025. ___________________ Tyler Corey, Secretary Planning Commission 317 From:Patino, Mallory Sent:Monday, July 7, 2025 11:07 AM To:clint.oram@gmail.com Cc:Terry Reeves Subject:RE: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Clint, below are answers (in purple) to your questions. I look forward to chatting more today so that I can expand/explain a bit more. We understand today is the last day to submit an appeal. In your email below, you had written that if we want to submit an appeal remotely that we can email you the form and pay over the phone. Please confirm that is possible today. Yes, today is the last to file the appeal. You would need to call to pay the appeal fee with the Finance Department first. Let me know if you decide to appeal and I will connect you with the Finance team via email regarding the phone payment. Then you would need to submit the Appeal Form and any additional appeal materials to the City Clerk’s Office with the receipt that you paid the appeal fee. The City Clerk’s email is cityclerk@slocity.org; you can include or CC me on the submittal. You would need to have this complete before 5pm today. We would also like to understand better what happens if we do or do not appeal. Some questions we have: 1/ If we do appeal: 1.1/ when would this be brought before the city council? The hearing date would not be set until an appeal is filed. An appeal likely would not be heard by City Council until this fall, or later. 1.2/ during the appeal process, would we be required to comply with whatever steps are necessary when the use permit is withdrawn? If you file an appeal, the CUP would continue (because a final decision will have not been made due to the appeal being submitted). 1.3/ what guidance can you give us to be best prepared during the appeal process? The appeal process would be you preparing for your hearing with City Council. Planning staff will prepare a response/staff report based on what the appeal filing includes. 2/ If we do not appeal: 2.1/ what are those steps we would be required to take to comply with the revocation of the use permit? With the revocation of the use permit, the site is no longer permitted to operate as a fraternity organization, effective upon adoption of the Resolution (6/25/25). The site may be able to continue residential land uses, as allowed in the R-4 zone under the Municipal Code. 2.2/ what is the timeline for those steps? The Resolution is effective immediately upon being adopted (6/25/25). Also, please send us the final copy of the resolution passed by the planning commission to revoke the use permit. The Resolution is undergoing final processing (signatures and publishing) this morning. I will have the final copy to you shortly. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 318 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Clint Oram < Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 9:33 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory, My name is Clint Oram and I am with Terry Reeves and the Alpha Upsilon Delta Upsilon Alumni Corporation, the landlords of 720 Foothill Blvd. At this stage, we are looking to gather as much information as possible. We have been reviewing the use permit revocation and trying to understand what next steps we have available to us. We understand today is the last day to submit an appeal. In your email below, you had written that if we want to submit an appeal remotely that we can email you the form and pay over the phone. Please confirm that is possible today. We would also like to understand better what happens if we do or do not appeal. Some questions we have: 1/ If we do appeal: 1.1/ when would this be brought before the city council? 1.2/ during the appeal process, would we be required to comply with whatever steps are necessary when the use permit is withdrawn? 1.3/ what guidance can you give us to be best prepared during the appeal process? 2/ If we do not appeal: 2.1/ what are those steps we would be required to take to comply with the revocation of the use permit? 2.2/ what is the timeline for those steps? Also, please send us the final copy of the resolution passed by the planning commission to revoke the use permit. Are you available for a call today to review these questions? Regards, Clint Oram On Tuesday, July 1, 2025 at 04:31:35 PM PDT, Terry Reeves < wrote: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Date: Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 3:43 PM Subject: RE: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill 319 To: Terry Reeves < Cc: Juan Fernandez < Hi Terry, My apologies on the delay in reaching out to you! I was actually just working on this draft to reach out to you when I got your email. Last week on June 25, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution revoking the Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity (Delta Upsilon) at 720 Foothill. We are processing the final resolution, and I will send on a copy once signed. There will be no changes to the content from the draft version that was published with the agenda. This resolution (decision) may be appealed to the City Council. To appeal, you must complete and file the Appeal to the City Council form with the City Clerk’s Office within 10 calendar days of this rendered decision (by end of business day, Monday July 7, since day 10 is on a weekend). The required filing fee ($2,662.26) must accompany the appeal form. You can pay the appeal fee at the Finance Counter, which is temporarily located at 919 Palm Street, in person from Monday-Thursday, 8am-4pm. If you need to pay over the phone, you can let me know and I’ll coordinate phone payment. Information about the appeal procedures is on the City's Website here (refer to the ‘Appeal to the City Council’ section). If you would like to pursue applying for a new Conditional Use Permit, I have attached here the application checklist of items required to apply (note: physical copies of plans are no longer required). You can apply via email by submitting the application materials to planning@slocity.org. Upon submittal of an application, Planning staff would set up an application and send you an invoice for the required application filing fee ($11,260.55). The invoice would be sent with instructions on how to pay online. If you preferred to apply and pay in person, let me know and I can provide details for days and times when our Planning counter is open to the public. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner 320 Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 3:41 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. The outcome was totally expected, but disappointing all the same. Can you help us understand our appeal options? Thanks. On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 5:20 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry, The Planning Commission Staff Report and associated attachments are now published and accessible online. You can download the pdfs here: https://pub- slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=0d341b53-47b3-4741-9491- b900ccf4c5d9&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English. I will be out of the office the rest of this week, but be back working on Monday afternoon. If you have any questions you’d like answers on before next week, please reach out to Rachel Cohen at rcohen@slocity.org. Otherwise, let me know if you have any questions or concerns before Wednesday morning. If you have a presentation you’d like to present, please send it to me before 3pm on Wednesday. You may submit agenda correspondence up until 3pm on Wednesday, see the City’s website for how to comment here: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and- minutes/planning-commission. Cheers, 321 Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:26 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. Thank you for the chat as well. It's fine to list me as the representative. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 3:16 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry and Juan, Thanks for the chat earlier today. I wanted to let you know I found the Draft Resolutions that are going on consent to Planning Commission tomorrow night for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s revocations. You can access the drafts by clicking the paper clip icons on the item here: https://pub- slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=711b6ba9-e00c-4566-ab59- 02a00d530d05&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=10&Tab=attachments . The language for my draft resolution will be similar to these, and if edits are made tomorrow night, my draft will likely reflect the final adopted Resolutions. One question regarding your review (USE-0334-2025), and sorry if you answered this already and I missed it – Would you like me to list Terry Reeves (Alumni Corporation President) as the representative on the agenda staff report? 322 Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:10 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill That would be perfect- thanks! Thanks, /juan On Jun 5, 2025, at 14:08, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, We prefer to use our City Teams meetings. I can send you the link shortly. Would you like me to invite everyone who is on this email thread? 323 Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:06 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Invite sent for Tuesday at 11am. Do you prefer to send a SLO City Zoom or shall I set it up? Thanks, /juan On Jun 5, 2025, at 13:58, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, I am available for a call or video meeting next Tuesday from 8:30am- 2pm, or Wednesday from 8:30am-1 pm. Let me know if there is a time during those windows that would work for you. Best, 324 Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006 .png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 1:56 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory- Thank you for your proactive note with links. Can we schedule a debrief with you for early next week to discuss our June 25 CUP? I’ve viewed some of the video of the May 28 hearing and it would be good to get your input as we prepare our presentation to the Planning Commission. Can you please suggest a few times next week that we can meet? /juan On Jun 3, 2025, at 16:29, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John and Wade, 325 I wanted to touch base on a few things regarding the upcoming USE-0334-2025 Planning Commission (PC) hearing. 1. As the applicant, you will be allowed to speak for 10 minutes during the PC meeting on 6/25. Please let me now if you would like to utilize this speaking window, and if yes, who the speaker will be. 2. Who would you like me to list as the applicant representative? Previous fraternities have generally listed the sitting chapter president, but it’s up to you if you would like an alumni member, or if you’d like multiple names included. 3. The PC hearings for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s CUP re-reviews were held on 5/28. Though staff presented a recommendation to modify the CUP with revised conditions of approval, the Commission decided to revoke both fraternity’s use permits. The Resolution will not be adopted until the 6/11 PC meeting since staff did not prepare a draft Resolution for revocation ahead of the PC meeting. a. Based on this outcome straying from the other two more recent reviews (from late 2024), I will not be making a recommendation on behalf of staff for modification or revocation of the CUP for your re-review. I am still drafting the staff report, but it will present the project facts and list the alternatives PC may choose, which are 1. Modification of use permit with updated conditions of approval, 2. Revocation of use permit, or 3. Continuance of review to future PC meeting date. I will have two draft Resolutions ready as attachments to my staff report, one for modification and one for revocation, in hopes that, based on their decision, PC will be able to adopt the Resolution the same night of the hearing. b. If you interested in reviewing the 5/28 PC meeting, the agenda, staff report, and minutes (no resolution yet though) can be found in these archives:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/Browse.aspx?id=26297&dbid=0&repo= CityClerk. c. You can watch the entirety of the 5/28 PC meeting here:https://www.youtube.com/live/avwDf oK3syU?si=0HUh_66DQiJAKQpp. From around 7 minutes to 1 hour, 45 minutes relates to the fraternity CUP re-reviews. 326 If you have any questions about the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting, or your upcoming hearing, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005. png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications From: John Hatfield < Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 9:24 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Wade Spriggs < Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill +Terry Reeves, incoming Alumni Corporation President Mallory, appreciate you sending this all over. It is very helpful. We were all finally able to line up our schedules and 6/25 works best for us. If we can put that date on the books, we'd appreciate it. Looking forward to being in SLO next month. Thank you, John Hatfield 327 On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 10:31 AM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Wade, My apologies for the delay in following up after our meeting. I set up the application for the re-review of your existing Conditional Use Permit to have a fraternity house at 720 Foothill (new application number: USE- 0334-2025). I have attached here a copy of your current use permit, which will be modified/updated through this re-review process. As I mentioned I would provide, below are links to two different fraternity use permit reviews that were recently processed.  Alpha Epsilon Pi, re-review of existing use permit o Staff Report for Planning Commission (PC) Meeting, agenda item 4a for re- review of existing use permit: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=201304&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk o PC Resolution, approval of modifications to existing use permit:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=202053&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk  Lambda Chi Alpha, review of new use permit o Staff Report for PC Meeting, agenda item 4a for new use permit application:https://opengov.slocity.org/W ebLink/Browse.aspx?id=194681&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk o PC Resolution, approval of use permit: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=195337&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk o Staff Report for City Council (CC) Meeting, agenda item 6b for appeal of PC use permit approval: https://opengov.slocity.org/We bLink/DocView.aspx?id=200405&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk o CC Resolution, upholding PC approval of use permit:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=200865&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk 328 o Appellant presentation available in the CC 10-15-24 agenda folder: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLin k/browse.aspx?id=200395&dbid=0&repo =CityClerk The updates we will be recommending to the Planning Commission will be very similar to what was approved for AEPi and Lambda. I am moving forward with re- reviewing two other fraternity use permits at the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting. We discussed the possibility of reviewing your use permit at the same time as the others on 5/28, or by itself at the 6/11 Planning Commission meeting. If neither of those options work, 6/25 would be the next available date. Please let me know which review date would be best for you. If you would like to make it on the 5/28 meeting agenda, I would need to know asap. I will have a draft of the staff report and proposed resolution available for your review at least one week ahead of whichever date we schedule for the PC meeting. I may be in touch in the next few weeks if I have any questions while working on the staff report and resolution recommendation. Let me know if you have any questions for me! Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image00 5.png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications -- 329 John Hatfield ( -- Terry -- Terry -- Terry 330 From:Clint Oram < Sent:Monday, July 7, 2025 10:30 AM To:Patino, Mallory Cc:Terry Reeves Subject:Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory, Terry and I are available at 11:30. When I’m back at my desk shortly I will send out a web meeting invite. Clint On Jul 7, 2025, at 10:20 AM, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Clint, I’m drafting the answers to your questions but wanted to tell you earlier rather than later that I am available for a call anytime after 11am. Let me know if there is a specific time that works well for you. Would you like to do a phone call or for me to send a link for a virtual meeting? Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Clint Oram < Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 9:33 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill 331 Hi Mallory, My name is Clint Oram and I am with Terry Reeves and the Alpha Upsilon Delta Upsilon Alumni Corporation, the landlords of 720 Foothill Blvd. At this stage, we are looking to gather as much information as possible. We have been reviewing the use permit revocation and trying to understand what next steps we have available to us. We understand today is the last day to submit an appeal. In your email below, you had written that if we want to submit an appeal remotely that we can email you the form and pay over the phone. Please confirm that is possible today. We would also like to understand better what happens if we do or do not appeal. Some questions we have: 1/ If we do appeal: 1.1/ when would this be brought before the city council? 1.2/ during the appeal process, would we be required to comply with whatever steps are necessary when the use permit is withdrawn? 1.3/ what guidance can you give us to be best prepared during the appeal process? 2/ If we do not appeal: 2.1/ what are those steps we would be required to take to comply with the revocation of the use permit? 2.2/ what is the timeline for those steps? Also, please send us the final copy of the resolution passed by the planning commission to revoke the use permit. Are you available for a call today to review these questions? Regards, Clint Oram On Tuesday, July 1, 2025 at 04:31:35 PM PDT, Terry Reeves <reevest81@gmail.com> wrote: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Date: Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 3:43 PM Subject: RE: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill To: Terry Reeves < Cc: Juan Fernandez < , John Hatfield < , Wade Spriggs < Hi Terry, 332 My apologies on the delay in reaching out to you! I was actually just working on this draft to reach out to you when I got your email. Last week on June 25, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution revoking the Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity (Delta Upsilon) at 720 Foothill. We are processing the final resolution, and I will send on a copy once signed. There will be no changes to the content from the draft version that was published with the agenda. This resolution (decision) may be appealed to the City Council. To appeal, you must complete and file the Appeal to the City Council form with the City Clerk’s Office within 10 calendar days of this rendered decision (by end of business day, Monday July 7, since day 10 is on a weekend). The required filing fee ($2,662.26) must accompany the appeal form. You can pay the appeal fee at the Finance Counter, which is temporarily located at 919 Palm Street, in person from Monday-Thursday, 8am-4pm. If you need to pay over the phone, you can let me know and I’ll coordinate phone payment. Information about the appeal procedures is on the City's Website here (refer to the ‘Appeal to the City Council’ section). If you would like to pursue applying for a new Conditional Use Permit, I have attached here the application checklist of items required to apply (note: physical copies of plans are no longer required). You can apply via email by submitting the application materials to planning@slocity.org. Upon submittal of an application, Planning staff would set up an application and send you an invoice for the required application filing fee ($11,260.55). The invoice would be sent with instructions on how to pay online. If you preferred to apply and pay in person, let me know and I can provide details for days and times when our Planning counter is open to the public. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org 333 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 3:41 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. The outcome was totally expected, but disappointing all the same. Can you help us understand our appeal options? Thanks. On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 5:20 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry, The Planning Commission Staff Report and associated attachments are now published and accessible online. You can download the pdfs here: https://pub- slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=0d341b53-47b3-4741-9491- b900ccf4c5d9&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English. I will be out of the office the rest of this week, but be back working on Monday afternoon. If you have any questions you’d like answers on before next week, please reach out to Rachel Cohen at rcohen@slocity.org. Otherwise, let me know if you have any questions or concerns before Wednesday morning. If you have a presentation you’d like to present, please send it to me before 3pm on Wednesday. You may submit agenda correspondence up until 3pm on Wednesday, see the City’s website for how to 334 comment here: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and- minutes/planning-commission. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:26 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. Thank you for the chat as well. It's fine to list me as the representative. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 3:16 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry and Juan, 335 Thanks for the chat earlier today. I wanted to let you know I found the Draft Resolutions that are going on consent to Planning Commission tomorrow night for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s revocations. You can access the drafts by clicking the paper clip icons on the item here: https://pub- slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=711b6ba9-e00c-4566-ab59- 02a00d530d05&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=10&Tab=attachments . The language for my draft resolution will be similar to these, and if edits are made tomorrow night, my draft will likely reflect the final adopted Resolutions. One question regarding your review (USE-0334-2025), and sorry if you answered this already and I missed it – Would you like me to list Terry Reeves (Alumni Corporation President) as the representative on the agenda staff report? Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:10 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill That would be perfect- thanks! 336 Thanks, /juan On Jun 5, 2025, at 14:08, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, We prefer to use our City Teams meetings. I can send you the link shortly. Would you like me to invite everyone who is on this email thread? Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006 .png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:06 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Invite sent for Tuesday at 11am. Do you prefer to send a SLO City Zoom or shall I set it up? 337 Thanks, /juan On Jun 5, 2025, at 13:58, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, I am available for a call or video meeting next Tuesday from 8:30am-2pm, or Wednesday from 8:30am-1 pm. Let me know if there is a time during those windows that would work for you. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005. png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 1:56 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory- 338 Thank you for your proactive note with links. Can we schedule a debrief with you for early next week to discuss our June 25 CUP? I’ve viewed some of the video of the May 28 hearing and it would be good to get your input as we prepare our presentation to the Planning Commission. Can you please suggest a few times next week that we can meet? /juan On Jun 3, 2025, at 16:29, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John and Wade, I wanted to touch base on a few things regarding the upcoming USE-0334-2025 Planning Commission (PC) hearing. 1. As the applicant, you will be allowed to speak for 10 minutes during the PC meeting on 6/25. Please let me now if you would like to utilize this speaking window, and if yes, who the speaker will be. 2. Who would you like me to list as the applicant representative? Previous fraternities have generally listed the sitting chapter president, but it’s up to you if you would like an alumni member, or if you’d like multiple names included. 3. The PC hearings for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s CUP re-reviews were 339 held on 5/28. Though staff presented a recommendation to modify the CUP with revised conditions of approval, the Commission decided to revoke both fraternity’s use permits. The Resolution will not be adopted until the 6/11 PC meeting since staff did not prepare a draft Resolution for revocation ahead of the PC meeting. 1. Based on this outcome straying from the other two more recent reviews (from late 2024), I will not be making a recommendation on behalf of staff for modification or revocation of the CUP for your re- review. I am still drafting the staff report, but it will present the project facts and list the alternatives PC may choose, which are 1. Modification of use permit with updated conditions of approval, 2. Revocation of use permit, or 3. Continuance of review to future PC meeting date. I will have two draft Resolutions ready as attachments to my staff report, one for modification and one for revocation, in hopes that, based on their decision, PC will be able to adopt the Resolution the same night of the hearing. 2. If you interested in reviewing the 5/28 PC meeting, the agenda, staff report, and minutes (no resolution yet though) can be found in these archives:https://opengov.sl ocity.org/WebLink/Browse. aspx?id=26297&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk. 3. You can watch the entirety of the 5/28 PC meeting here:https://www.youtube.c om/live/avwDfoK3syU?si=0 HUh_66DQiJAKQpp. From around 7 minutes to 1 hour, 45 minutes relates to 340 the fraternity CUP re- reviews. If you have any questions about the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting, or your upcoming hearing, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401- 3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004. png><image005.png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Hatfield < Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 9:24 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Wade Spriggs < Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill +Terry Reeves, incoming Alumni Corporation President Mallory, appreciate you sending this all over. It is very helpful. We were all finally able to line up our schedules and 6/25 works best for us. If we can put that date on the books, we'd appreciate it. Looking forward to being in SLO next month. 341 Thank you, John Hatfield On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 10:31 AM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Wade, My apologies for the delay in following up after our meeting. I set up the application for the re-review of your existing Conditional Use Permit to have a fraternity house at 720 Foothill (new application number: USE-0334-2025). I have attached here a copy of your current use permit, which will be modified/updated through this re-review process. As I mentioned I would provide, below are links to two different fraternity use permit reviews that were recently processed. 1. Alpha Epsilon Pi, re-review of existing use permit 1. Staff Report for Planning Commission (PC) Meeting, agenda item 4a for re-review of existing use permit: https://opengov.slo city.org/WebLink/DocView .aspx?id=201304&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk 2. PC Resolution, approval of modifications to existing use permit:https://opengov.slo city.org/WebLink/DocView .aspx?id=202053&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk 1. Lambda Chi Alpha, review of new use permit 342 1. Staff Report for PC Meeting, agenda item 4a for new use permit application:https://opengo v.slocity.org/WebLink/Bro wse.aspx?id=194681&dbi d=0&repo=CityClerk 2. PC Resolution, approval of use permit: https://opengov.slo city.org/WebLink/DocView .aspx?id=195337&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk 3. Staff Report for City Council (CC) Meeting, agenda item 6b for appeal of PC use permit approval: https://opengov. slocity.org/WebLink/DocVi ew.aspx?id=200405&dbid =0&repo=CityClerk 4. CC Resolution, upholding PC approval of use permit:https://opengov.slo city.org/WebLink/DocView .aspx?id=200865&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk 5. Appellant presentation available in the CC 10-15- 24 agenda folder: https://opengov.slo city.org/WebLink/browse.a spx?id=200395&dbid=0&r epo=CityClerk The updates we will be recommending to the Planning Commission will be very similar to what was approved for AEPi and Lambda. I am moving forward with re-reviewing two other fraternity use permits at the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting. We discussed the possibility of reviewing your use permit at the same time as the others on 5/28, or by itself at the 6/11 Planning Commission meeting. If neither of those options work, 6/25 would be the next available date. Please let me know which review date would be best for you. If you would like to make it on the 5/28 meeting agenda, I would need to know asap. I will have a draft of the staff report and proposed resolution available for your 343 review at least one week ahead of whichever date we schedule for the PC meeting. I may be in touch in the next few weeks if I have any questions while working on the staff report and resolution recommendation. Let me know if you have any questions for me! Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004 .png><image005.png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -- John Hatfield ( -- Terry 344 -- Terry -- Terry 345 From:Patino, Mallory Sent:Monday, July 7, 2025 10:20 AM To:Clint Oram Cc:Terry Reeves Subject:RE: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Clint, I’m drafting the answers to your questions but wanted to tell you earlier rather than later that I am available for a call anytime after 11am. Let me know if there is a specific time that works well for you. Would you like to do a phone call or for me to send a link for a virtual meeting? Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Clint Oram < Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 9:33 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory, My name is Clint Oram and I am with Terry Reeves and the Alpha Upsilon Delta Upsilon Alumni Corporation, the landlords of 720 Foothill Blvd. At this stage, we are looking to gather as much information as possible. We have been reviewing the use permit revocation and trying to understand what next steps we have available to us. We understand today is the last day to submit an appeal. In your email below, you had written that if we want to submit an appeal remotely that we can email you the form and pay over the phone. Please confirm that is possible today. We would also like to understand better what happens if we do or do not appeal. Some questions we have: 1/ If we do appeal: 1.1/ when would this be brought before the city council? 1.2/ during the appeal process, would we be required to comply with whatever steps are necessary when the use permit is withdrawn? 346 1.3/ what guidance can you give us to be best prepared during the appeal process? 2/ If we do not appeal: 2.1/ what are those steps we would be required to take to comply with the revocation of the use permit? 2.2/ what is the timeline for those steps? Also, please send us the final copy of the resolution passed by the planning commission to revoke the use permit. Are you available for a call today to review these questions? Regards, Clint Oram On Tuesday, July 1, 2025 at 04:31:35 PM PDT, Terry Reeves < wrote: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Date: Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 3:43 PM Subject: RE: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill To: Terry Reeves < Cc: Juan Fernandez < , John Hatfield < , Wade Spriggs < Hi Terry, My apologies on the delay in reaching out to you! I was actually just working on this draft to reach out to you when I got your email. Last week on June 25, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution revoking the Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity (Delta Upsilon) at 720 Foothill. We are processing the final resolution, and I will send on a copy once signed. There will be no changes to the content from the draft version that was published with the agenda. This resolution (decision) may be appealed to the City Council. To appeal, you must complete and file the Appeal to the City Council form with the City Clerk’s Office within 10 calendar days of this rendered decision (by end of business day, Monday July 7, since day 10 is on a weekend). The required filing fee ($2,662.26) must accompany the appeal form. You can pay the appeal fee at the Finance Counter, which is temporarily located at 919 Palm Street, in person from Monday-Thursday, 8am-4pm. If you need to pay over the phone, you can let me know and I’ll coordinate phone payment. 347 Information about the appeal procedures is on the City's Website here (refer to the ‘Appeal to the City Council’ section). If you would like to pursue applying for a new Conditional Use Permit, I have attached here the application checklist of items required to apply (note: physical copies of plans are no longer required). You can apply via email by submitting the application materials to planning@slocity.org. Upon submittal of an application, Planning staff would set up an application and send you an invoice for the required application filing fee ($11,260.55). The invoice would be sent with instructions on how to pay online. If you preferred to apply and pay in person, let me know and I can provide details for days and times when our Planning counter is open to the public. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 3:41 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. The outcome was totally expected, but disappointing all the same. Can you help us understand our appeal options? Thanks. 348 On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 5:20 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry, The Planning Commission Staff Report and associated attachments are now published and accessible online. You can download the pdfs here: https://pub- slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=0d341b53-47b3-4741-9491- b900ccf4c5d9&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English. I will be out of the office the rest of this week, but be back working on Monday afternoon. If you have any questions you’d like answers on before next week, please reach out to Rachel Cohen at rcohen@slocity.org. Otherwise, let me know if you have any questions or concerns before Wednesday morning. If you have a presentation you’d like to present, please send it to me before 3pm on Wednesday. You may submit agenda correspondence up until 3pm on Wednesday, see the City’s website for how to comment here: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and- minutes/planning-commission. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:26 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. Thank you for the chat as well. It's fine to list me as the representative. Thanks. 349 On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 3:16 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry and Juan, Thanks for the chat earlier today. I wanted to let you know I found the Draft Resolutions that are going on consent to Planning Commission tomorrow night for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s revocations. You can access the drafts by clicking the paper clip icons on the item here: https://pub- slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=711b6ba9-e00c-4566-ab59- 02a00d530d05&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=10&Tab=attachments . The language for my draft resolution will be similar to these, and if edits are made tomorrow night, my draft will likely reflect the final adopted Resolutions. One question regarding your review (USE-0334-2025), and sorry if you answered this already and I missed it – Would you like me to list Terry Reeves (Alumni Corporation President) as the representative on the agenda staff report? Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:10 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill That would be perfect- thanks! Thanks, 350 /juan On Jun 5, 2025, at 14:08, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, We prefer to use our City Teams meetings. I can send you the link shortly. Would you like me to invite everyone who is on this email thread? Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:06 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Invite sent for Tuesday at 11am. Do you prefer to send a SLO City Zoom or shall I set it up? Thanks, /juan 351 On Jun 5, 2025, at 13:58, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, I am available for a call or video meeting next Tuesday from 8:30am- 2pm, or Wednesday from 8:30am-1 pm. Let me know if there is a time during those windows that would work for you. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006 .png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 1:56 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory- Thank you for your proactive note with links. Can we schedule a debrief with you for early next week to discuss our June 25 CUP? I’ve viewed some of the video of the May 28 hearing and it would be good to get your input as we prepare our presentation to the Planning Commission. 352 Can you please suggest a few times next week that we can meet? /juan On Jun 3, 2025, at 16:29, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John and Wade, I wanted to touch base on a few things regarding the upcoming USE-0334-2025 Planning Commission (PC) hearing. 1. As the applicant, you will be allowed to speak for 10 minutes during the PC meeting on 6/25. Please let me now if you would like to utilize this speaking window, and if yes, who the speaker will be. 2. Who would you like me to list as the applicant representative? Previous fraternities have generally listed the sitting chapter president, but it’s up to you if you would like an alumni member, or if you’d like multiple names included. 3. The PC hearings for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s CUP re-reviews were held on 5/28. Though staff presented a recommendation to modify the CUP with revised conditions of approval, the Commission decided to revoke both fraternity’s use permits. The Resolution will not be adopted until the 6/11 PC meeting since staff did not prepare a draft Resolution for revocation ahead of the PC meeting. a. Based on this outcome straying from the other two more recent reviews (from late 2024), I will not be making a recommendation on behalf of staff for modification or revocation of the CUP for your re-review. I am still drafting the staff report, but it will present the project facts 353 and list the alternatives PC may choose, which are 1. Modification of use permit with updated conditions of approval, 2. Revocation of use permit, or 3. Continuance of review to future PC meeting date. I will have two draft Resolutions ready as attachments to my staff report, one for modification and one for revocation, in hopes that, based on their decision, PC will be able to adopt the Resolution the same night of the hearing. b. If you interested in reviewing the 5/28 PC meeting, the agenda, staff report, and minutes (no resolution yet though) can be found in these archives:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/Browse.aspx?id=26297&dbid=0&repo= CityClerk. c. You can watch the entirety of the 5/28 PC meeting here:https://www.youtube.com/live/avwDf oK3syU?si=0HUh_66DQiJAKQpp. From around 7 minutes to 1 hour, 45 minutes relates to the fraternity CUP re-reviews. If you have any questions about the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting, or your upcoming hearing, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005. png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications From: John Hatfield < Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 9:24 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Wade Spriggs < Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill 354 +Terry Reeves, incoming Alumni Corporation President Mallory, appreciate you sending this all over. It is very helpful. We were all finally able to line up our schedules and 6/25 works best for us. If we can put that date on the books, we'd appreciate it. Looking forward to being in SLO next month. Thank you, John Hatfield On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 10:31 AM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Wade, My apologies for the delay in following up after our meeting. I set up the application for the re-review of your existing Conditional Use Permit to have a fraternity house at 720 Foothill (new application number: USE- 0334-2025). I have attached here a copy of your current use permit, which will be modified/updated through this re-review process. As I mentioned I would provide, below are links to two different fraternity use permit reviews that were recently processed.  Alpha Epsilon Pi, re-review of existing use permit o Staff Report for Planning Commission (PC) Meeting, agenda item 4a for re- review of existing use permit: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=201304&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk o PC Resolution, approval of modifications to existing use permit:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi 355 nk/DocView.aspx?id=202053&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk  Lambda Chi Alpha, review of new use permit o Staff Report for PC Meeting, agenda item 4a for new use permit application:https://opengov.slocity.org/W ebLink/Browse.aspx?id=194681&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk o PC Resolution, approval of use permit: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=195337&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk o Staff Report for City Council (CC) Meeting, agenda item 6b for appeal of PC use permit approval: https://opengov.slocity.org/We bLink/DocView.aspx?id=200405&dbid=0 &repo=CityClerk o CC Resolution, upholding PC approval of use permit:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLi nk/DocView.aspx?id=200865&dbid=0&re po=CityClerk o Appellant presentation available in the CC 10-15-24 agenda folder: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLin k/browse.aspx?id=200395&dbid=0&repo =CityClerk The updates we will be recommending to the Planning Commission will be very similar to what was approved for AEPi and Lambda. I am moving forward with re- reviewing two other fraternity use permits at the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting. We discussed the possibility of reviewing your use permit at the same time as the others on 5/28, or by itself at the 6/11 Planning Commission meeting. If neither of those options work, 6/25 would be the next available date. Please let me know which review date would be best for you. If you would like to make it on the 5/28 meeting agenda, I would need to know asap. I will have a draft of the staff report and proposed resolution available for your review at least one week ahead of whichever date we schedule for the PC meeting. I may be in touch in the next few weeks if I have any questions while working on the staff report and resolution recommendation. Let me know if you have any questions for me! 356 Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image00 5.png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications -- John Hatfield ( -- Terry -- Terry -- Terry 357 From:Stewart, Erica A Sent:Monday, July 7, 2025 7:52 AM To:McDonald, Whitney Subject:Fw: Tassajara/Ramona Neighborhood / Please Act to Protect All Neighborhoods Attachments:CPRA CAL POLY 2ND REQUEST.pdf; Writ of Mandate CPRA Cal Poly.pdf Erica A. Stewart pronouns she/her/hers Mayor Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E estewart@slocity.org C 805.540.1154 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and l The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and l The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and l Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:45 PM To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Tassajara/Ramona Neighborhood / Please Act to Protect All Neighborhoods Dear City Councilmembers, The quality of life issues related to illegal fraternity operations have gravely affected the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods near campus. Over the past few years, the illegal fraternities have spread to other single-family residential neighborhoods further away, west of Santa Rosa Street, including Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF) and the Ramona/Tassajara neighborhood. It is probably not a coincidence that long- term residents/families are selling their homes and leaving the neighborhood. One family on Ramona Drive complained about an illegal fraternity behind them at 311 Foothill Blvd, which was identified in Cal Poly's AB 524 report as holding fraternity events. The property owner received a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations at 311 Foothill, but the noise from the fraternity continued. Last year, that family on Ramona Drive sold their home and moved away because the noise in the neighborhood was too much to take. A different family living on S. Tassajara reached out to RQN last year because Pi Kappa Phi is operating behind/diagonal from their home at 66 S. Rafael, and constant noise and disruptive fraternity events for several years have made their lives miserable. The family on S. Tassajara and the historic architectural renovation of 358 their home were featured in SLO Life Magazine in early 2019, before the fraternity moved in behind them. Here is a link to the article, "As One", pages 54 - 62 https://issuu.com/slolifemagazine/docs/slolifefebmar2019lr. Even before the residents on S. Tassajara contacted RQN, I sent documentation to the City that showed Pi Kappa Phi was illegally operating at 66 S. Rafael, with social media posts that advertised fraternity-related events specifically at 66 S. Rafael since Fall 2022. The City did not take any action. Pi Kappa Phi is still operating at that address, including rush events during the 2024-2025 school year that were documented with video, with large Greek letters in their driveway during the event. I have continued to send documentation of fraternity events advertised on social media to the City without any resolution. There is also a significant history of noise complaints for 66 S. Rafael. Last week, a house occupied by a family was listed for sale at 53 S. Rafael, shown below in the black box. This house is across the street diagonally from Pi Kappa Psi's illegal fraternity house at 66 Rafael (red box, middle). Last year, another fraternity moved in directly behind 53 Rafael at 311 Del Mar Court (red box, far left) and has held fraternity-related events there. Another fraternity, Phi Gamma Delta or FIJI, is operating illegally, a block away at 451 Ramona Drive (red box, far right). When fraternities illegally operate in neighborhoods, it starts with one or two. If the City doesn't stop them, more move into the neighborhood because there is an implicit message that it's okay, because other fraternities are also operating nearby. That's how the Alta Vista neighborhood became overrun with dozens of illegal fraternities, and Albert Drive has become the new Greek Row. Fraternity operations are not compatible with the lifestyle of families living in a residential neighborhood, and they are moving away. "Families" is defined broadly, including all sorts of groups who would traditionally live in a neighborhood with the expectation that they are not living next to or within earshot of a fraternity house, which is the equivalent of a downtown bar & nightclub moving into the neighborhood. There are constant disruptions from extremely noisy parties, increased traffic of 100+ loud, often intoxicated guests coming and going, vandalism, and other nuisances such as trespassing, vomiting, and using private yards as a toilet. 359 The City, in its response to the Grand Jury on 6/20/2025, cited repeated attempts to work with Cal Poly to gain compliance, including the efforts listed below, which have not worked. I have included some additional items, in italics, for context:  January 10, 2024: City staff met with Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the complaints received regarding Fraternities and Sororities.  April 10, 2024: Follow-up meeting with Assistant Director of Fraternity & Sorority Life regarding the City's response to unpermitted Fraternities.  April 16, 2024: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities.  July 2024: Cal Poly edited its online AB 524 Reports and erased the addresses of all fraternity events for the 2023-2024 academic year.  August 2024: Community Development Director met with Cal Poly leadership to discuss the issue of Fraternities/Sororities and land use requirements for houses.  October 2024: Fraternities held fraternity rush events at their illegal fraternity house locations in R1/R2 neighborhoods, and the dates, times, and addresses of some of those illegal fraternity events were sent to the City, copied at the bottom of this email. The fraternities continued to hold fraternity parties and other events at their illegal fraternity houses throughout the academic year, and not a single fraternity ceased operations.  January 12, 2025: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities.  January 17 - 26, 2025: Fraternities ignored the City's presentation and held fraternity rush events at their illegal fraternity house locations in R1/R2 neighborhoods. Code Enforcement staff responded to addresses holding rush events, but when they approached some fraternity members at a check-in table with laptops in the front yard, the fraternity members denied that they were holding a rush event. Code Enforcement staff noted they were wearing shirts with Greek letters. Almost immediately, the fraternity members alerted other members at illegal fraternity houses in the neighborhood, which prompted other fraternities to move their check-in tables and laptops behind their fences. They then refused to answer the door to City staff, who heard the events in the backyards but did not cite them.  March 4, 2025: Meeting with City staff and Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the ongoing issues regarding Fraternities and Sororities and the upcoming "St. Fratty's Day" event. Cal Poly leadership and fraternities have ignored the City and have shown that they are not going to cooperate to solve this problem. The Grand Jury made clear that the City has not enforced its zoning ordinances and municipal codes, and ver 50 illegal fraternities have continued to operate illegally. Even more have been established in the neighborhoods over the past two years. In January 2025, I wrote to the City, including Christine Dietrick, and sent information about a case about 30 years ago when the City of SLO prosecuted a fraternity for operating without a use permit. I wanted Ms. Dietrick to use the same strategy to bring the most egregious violators into compliance. Nothing ever happened. In case you believe the situation is exaggerated because we are older residents, I encourage you to read the correspondence and listen to the 6/25/2025 testimony to the Planning Commission from younger residents near 360 the Delta Upsilon fraternity house at 720 Foothill Blvd. A young property manager representing 28 residents of an apartment (1/3 college students and 2/3 working adults), and another young resident living nearby, spoke about the non-stop disruptive noise, lack of cooperation, and property damage they have dealt with from the fraternity members and their guests. They described what we live with constantly during the academic year. The difference is that Delta Upsilon was permitted and is only one fraternity house, while our neighborhood has over 30 illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternities. We are literally surrounded by numerous illegal fraternities, and cannot rest or sleep on weekends during the academic year. We have relied on you to solve the problem. I've been sending videos since Fall 2021, and the situation has not improved! Below is a link to some testimony from younger folks at the Planning Commission hearing on June 25, 2025: Planning Commission 6_25_2025 testimony.mp4 The constant stress and lack of sleep are EXTREMELY taxing on the mental and physical well-being of those living near the illegal fraternities. The younger folks who testified in the link above, confirmed the constant noise "is far more than an annoyance. It's a violaiton of their quiet enjoyment, and directly affects their health, well- being and livihood." It is devastating to the health and welfare of those living nearby! You are our elected representatives and have the authority to direct the City Attorney to get the addresses from Cal Poly by filing a Writ of Mandamus with the SLO Superior Court. I am asking you to please do that. With the addresses, the City can bring the property owners into compliance with the law to restore our neighborhoods so people, including college students, can rest and sleep. Please ask the City Manager and City Attorney to take the necessary steps to get the addresses and solve this enormous problem that is worsening each year. In 2024, I prepared a draft Writ of Mandate and Points and Authorities Memorandum to compel Cal Poly to publish the addresses of its illegal fraternities. I am a paralegal and not a lawyer, plus I have not practiced for a long time, so the draft is not great, but it gives you an important timeline of events and history related to Cal Poly's fraternities. (Attached) Cal Poly's responses to my public records requests changed after each request I made, with a different excuse, and they never provided any information. The City can compel the release of the addresses by filing a Writ or similar action. Please take meaningful action to identify the illegal fraternities on file with Cal Poly's Greek Life office, and stop the illegal fraternity operations to restore our neighborhoods for the health and welfare of many residents impacted by illegal fraternities. Thank you, Kathie Walker Fall Rush Events at Illegal Fraternity Houses (The list only includes those that were documented.) Friday 10/4/2024: 1684-1688 Mill Street -R2 (Delta Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 281 Albert Drive -R1 (Delta Upsilon) MAIN SATELLITE HOUSE – It has a permitted house at 720 E. Foothill Blvd 248-250 Grand Ave -R1 (Theta Chi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE WITH 1844 MCCOLLUM (Shared Yards) 281 Hathway Ave -R1 (Kappa Sigma) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 348-350 Hathway Ave - R2 (Phi Sigma Kappa) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1525 Slack St -R1 (Sigma Pi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 2090 Hays - R1 (Sigma Epsilon) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1218-1220 Bond St - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1229 Fredericks - R1 (Phi Gamma Delta aka FIJI) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 654 & 658 Graves -R4 (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE Saturday 10/5/2024: 654 & 658 Graves -R4 (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 361 299 Albert - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) 12 Hathway - R1 (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1841 Slack St - R1 (Sigma Nu) 66 Rafael - R1 (Pi Kappa Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE IN THE CITY 1820 Hope - R1 (Theta Chi) Main Chapter House last year 2023-2024 322 Hathway - R2 (Kappa Sigma) 1908 Loomis - R1 (Phi Sigma Kappa) 1276 Bond St - R1 (Phi Kappa Psi) 589 Cuesta Drive - R1 (Delta Sigma Phi) 1555 Slack St - R1 (Sigma Pi) Sunday 10/6/2024 237 Albert Dr - R1 (Phi Kappa Psi) 124 Stenner - R4 (Sigma Pi) 171 Orange - R1 (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1646 Fredericks St - R1 (Zeta Beta Tau) 1868 Loomis -R1 (Delta Upsilon) 260 Chaplin - R1 (Phi Delta Theta) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1632 Fredericks - R1 (Sigma Nu) 255 Chaplin - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) 1 Kathie Walker December 11, 2023 Maren Hufton and the Civil Rights and Compliance Office - Public Records Access Unit California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo pra@calpoly.edu RE: Second request for records under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) Dear Ms. Hufton and Cal Poly Records Custodian, On 10/26/2023, I submitted a public records request for the addresses of Cal Poly fraternity satellite houses and their fraternity affiliations. You denied my request on 11/6/2023, citing exemptions according to California Government Code §§ 7922.000; 7927.705; 20 U.S.C. §1232g. The exemptions you listed do not apply to the records I requested, as outlined below. I am, therefore, renewing my request that you provide to me a list of every Cal Poly satellite fraternity house, with their address and fraternity affiliation, from the time period of August 1, 2020, to the present date. I am making this request under the California Public Records Act. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. §1232g Ms. Hufton on behalf of Cal Poly (hereafter referred to as “Cal Poly”) claims that FERPA does not permit release of addresses of satellite fraternity houses and therefore the information is exempt from production under the CPRA according to California Government Code §7927.705. However, FERPA does not apply to the disclosure of the addresses of satellite fraternity houses. FERPA defines “education records” as “those records, files, documents, and other materials which (i) contain information directly related to a student; and (ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.”1 In other words, there are two essential criteria for a document to be confidential under FERPA: it must “directly relate” to a student, and it must be “maintained” by the institution. The “directly relate” prong of FERPA substantially narrows the scope of what FERPA covers. To be a confidential FERPA record, a document must not merely mention a student; it must actually be about that student. For example, in a January 2011 ruling, a Florida state court ordered the University of Florida to release tapes and transcripts of Student Senate meetings that the college was withholding under FERPA. The judge ruled that, although the documents contained the names and voices of students, they were not the records “of” any particular student for FERPA purposes.2 The records I requested do not directly relate to, or ask for, any information that identifies any particular student. There are 18 fraternities within the Interfraternity Council (IFC) at Cal Poly and each chapter has many members, with a total of over 2,000 members amongst the 18 fraternities. While many fraternities have what they consider a main house, they also have several other fraternity houses which are considered “satellite 1 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A). 2 Bracco v. Machen, No. 01-2009-CA-4444, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 5 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 8th Cir. Jan. 10, 2011). 2 fraternity houses”. In fact, most Cal Poly fraternity houses are satellite fraternity houses. Some of the “main” fraternity houses are considered a “satellite fraternity house” and are located within lower-density neighborhoods. Some fraternity members live in the main houses, some live in the satellite fraternity houses and some don’t live in either. I do not want to know the names of anyone who lives at any of the addresses and am not requesting any information that would link anyone to any address. I am simply requesting a current list of addresses of the satellite fraternity houses and their fraternity affiliations, without providing any other information related to the tenants or fraternity members living at any of those addresses. The Legislature in California specifically found that the addresses of satellite fraternity houses are not protected under the provisions of FERPA. In February 2021, California Assembly Bill 524 (AB 524), also known as the Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act, was first introduced with the aim to increase transparency between campus-affiliated Greek organizations and the public. The legislation requires that all colleges and universities report various information regarding their fraternity organizations and members by posting the information in a prominent location on the college’s Greek Life homepage on or before October 1, 2023, and annually thereafter. AB 524 requires that the publicly accessible information include the addresses of fraternities and the locations, dates, and hours of sanctioned events held by each fraternity. The sanctioned events held by Cal Poly fraternities are largely held at satellite fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo. AB 524 was approved unanimously by the California Senate and signed by the governor on Sept. 13, 2022. During the third reading of the Assembly Bill in the Senate on June 14, 2022, the Senate acknowledged the privacy laws under FERPA, and found that the disclosure of the addresses of fraternities and the disclosure of the location, date, and time of any sanctioned event does not violate FERPA. On the passing of the Assembly Bill on August 15, 2022, it was specifically noted, "AB 524 will achieve transparency while respecting students' right to privacy as provided by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act by only providing non- identifiable information. These common-sense provisions strengthen public safety of higher education communities." As a result of AB 524, Cal Poly published links on their Greek Life website which correspond to each of the 18 IFC fraternities, and includes addresses of satellite fraternity houses, with the dates and times of sanctioned events held by the fraternity organizations at each of those addresses for the previous academic year. Remarkably, in their refusal to my records request, Cal Poly admits that they have already disclosed the addresses of Cal Poly’s satellite fraternity houses to the public as legally required by AB 524, while also alleging that those addresses are protected under FERPA. In any event, FERPA does not provide an exemption for the addresses of satellite fraternity houses and their fraternity affiliations, therefore the records must be released as I have requested in my public records request. California Public Records Act (CPRA) The California Public Records Act (CPRA) establishes a presumptive right of access to any record created or maintained by a public agency that relates in any way to the business of the public agency, and the record must be disclosed unless a statutory exception is shown. Statutory exemptions from compelled disclosure under the CPRA are narrowly construed, and the government agency opposing disclosure bears the burden of proving that one or more of the exemptions apply in a particular case.3 3 Caldecott v. Superior Court (App. 4 Dist. 2015) 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 223, 243 Cal.App.4th 212 3 The CPRA includes two exceptions to general policy of disclosure of public records: materials expressly exempt from disclosure, and the “catchall exception” which allows government agency to withhold records if it can demonstrate that, on facts of particular case, public interest served by withholding records clearly outweighs public interest served by disclosure.4 California Government Code § 7922.000 and justification for withholding of records with the “catch-all exemption” According to the provision of § 7922.000 - sometimes known as the catch-all exemption - an agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this division, or that “on the facts of the particular case” the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. The privacy and catchall statutory exemptions from mandatory disclosure under the CPRA must be narrowly construed.5 Gov. Code §7922.000 only permits the public agency to withhold a record under the catch-all exemption of §7922.000 on the basis that "on the facts of the particular case" the balancing of interests clearly favors nondisclosure. The numerous cases examining this balancing test place the burden on the local agency to show that the public interest in confidentiality outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In fact, given the public policy involved, courts demand a demonstration of “clear overbalance” to justify non-disclosure.6 The courts have consistently construed exemptions from disclosure narrowly and agencies’ disclosure obligations broadly.7 Ambiguities in the CPRA must be interpreted in a way that maximizes the public’s access to information unless the Legislature has expressly provided otherwise.8 Because the public interest in nondisclosure must clearly outweigh the public interest in disclosure, if the interests are just about equal, the scales tip in favor of disclosure. The courts have consistently held that public interest in disclosure overrides alleged privacy interests. The following cases are some examples as they were subject to disclosure under the public interest exemption balancing test: • The addresses of residential customers who exceeded their water allocations. The water district’s claim that providing names and addresses of residential customers who exceeded their water allocations would expose those people to verbal or physical harassment was insufficient to justify refusal to provide access to public records.9 • The identities of purchasers of luxury suites in a university arena even though those donors requested anonymity. Public interest in disclosure of public records in possession of state university which revealed identities of private donors who had entered into license agreements allowing them to use luxury suites 4 Wyatt v. Kern High School Dist. (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2022) 296 Cal.Rptr.3d 476 ADD 5 Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (App. 2 Dist. 2012) 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 395, 202 Cal.App.4th 1250 6 Iloh v. Regents of University of California (App. 4 Dist. 2023) 303 Cal.Rptr.3d 709; Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court (App. 5 Dist. 2004) 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 517; California State University v. Superior Court (App. 5 Dist. 2001) 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 870; See also Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974) 42. Cal App. 3d 645, 657. 7 Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469, 476; New York Times Co. V. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.app.3d 1579, 1578; San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 762, 772-773 8 Sierra Club v. Superior Court of Orange County (2013) 57 Cal.4th 157, 175-176. 9 New York Times Co. V. Superior Court (App 2 Dist. 1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1579. 4 in multipurpose arena being built on university campus was not outweighed by public interest in nondisclosure under catchall exemption to disclosure requirements of CPRA.10 • Identification of personal information in applications for concealed weapons permits. Possibility that disclosure of information in applications did not outweigh people’s right to know, such that records would be within this section; people’s right to know would not be limited on basis of inchoate fear that some would violate law rather than have their names disclosed.11 • Names of pharmaceutical companies and others providing a drug used for lethal injection to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Speculative claims regarding privacy and security interests were insufficient to establish that the public interest served by nondisclosure clearly outweighed the public interest served by disclosure of the names of the pharmaceutical companies and others from which the CDCR sought to acquire sodium thiopental, a drug used as part of the three-drug lethal injection protocol.12 • Coroner's investigation report related to a police officer’s alleged suicide.13 • The identities of individuals granted criminal conviction exemptions to work in licensed daycare facilities and the facilities employing them.14 • Court records of a settlement between the insurer for a school district and a minor sexual assault victim.15 • Disclosure of county’s geographical information system (GIS) basemap.16 Cal Poly claims that the public interest in disclosure of the requested information “is further reduced as there is already publicly available information about the location of the events and activities of Cal Poly recognized fraternities” which was posted on Cal Poly’s Greek Life website in compliance with AB 524. The fact that the addresses satellite fraternity houses are publicly available on Cal Poly’s website does not lessen Cal Poly’s obligation to provide a complete and current list of addresses for satellite fraternity houses according to my public records request. One major issue that is overlooked by Cal Poly is that the addresses of fraternities and sanctioned events that take place at those fraternities, including at satellite fraternity houses, are posted retrospectively for the previous academic year, in this case from August 2022-June 2023. It is not a complete list to include the satellite fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo for this academic year. Furthermore, Cal Poly is not required to post their updated list online, with the addresses of current satellite fraternity houses that have surfaced, until October 1, 2024, nearly one year from now. Meanwhile, in August 2023, multiple new satellite fraternity houses emerged in our lower-density (R-1 and R-2) residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo for this academic year of 2023-2024. They have their Greek letters posted on their property and/or fly their fraternity flags, and they host parties and other events. It seems evident that they are satellite fraternity houses but have just recently begun to operate as such, therefore they are not listed on Cal Poly’s AB 524 report posted online so there is no official recognition of their existence. Thus, I made a public records request to include the current list of satellite fraternity houses and their affiliations 10 California State University v. Superior Court (2001) 56 Cal.App.4th 601 11 CBS, Inc. V. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 230 Cal.Rptr. 362 12 American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. Superior Court (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55. 13 Edais v. Superior Court (2023) 303 Cal.Rptr. 3d 722 14 CBS Broadcasting Inc., v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 892 15 Copley Press, Inc., v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 367 16 County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 374, 170 Cal.App.4th 1301. 5 up until the present date. Regardless of my reasoning, one’s motivation to justify a public records request is not required.17 Based on the facts of this matter and case law, Cal Poly is unable to meet their burden of demonstrating a clear overbalance on the side of non-disclosure and must provide the records I requested. Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarification about my request. I can be reached at (805) 458-0713. Thank you, Kathie Walker 17 San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128, 139 Cal.App.4th 1356: “[U]nless exempted, all public records may be examined by any member of the public, often the press, but conceivably any person with no greater interest than idle curiosity.” - 1 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Name Title Address San Luis Obispo, CA Email/Phone Attorney for Petitioner/Plaintiff, KATHIE WALKER SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO KATHIE WALKER, Petitioner/Plaintiff, vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, and JEFFREY ARMSTRONG, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN LUIS OBISPO Respondents/Defendants. Case No.: VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS [California Public Records Act, Gov. Code Section 7920.000, et. seq.] Petitioner and Plaintiff KATHIE WALKER (“Petitioner”), an individual, petitions the Court, through this Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint (“Petition”), to command Respondents and Defendants, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and JEFFREY ARMSTRONG, in his official capacity as the President of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (collectively “Respondents” or “Cal Poly”), to comply with the - 2 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), Government Code section 7920.000 et. seq.,1 and the California Constitution, Article I, section 3(b), to declare that Respondents have failed to do so; and to enjoin them from continuing to violate the law by withholding public records requested by Petitioner. INTRODUCTION 1. This Petition seeks to enforce the people’s fundamental right of access to public records, including, but not limited to, the public’s right to receive records promptly and without an agency delaying or obstructing the inspection or copying of public records. §§ 7922.500, 7922.530(a). 2. ‘Modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.), the CPRA was enacted for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to records in the possession of state and local agencies.’ Iloh v. Regents of University of California 87 Cal.App.5th 513, 523 (2023). 3. In enacting the statute in 1968, the Legislature declared this right of access to be ‘a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state’ (§ 7921.000)—a declaration ratified by voters who amended the California Constitution in 2004 to secure a ‘right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business’ (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(1), added by Prop. 59, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2004)).” National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward 9 Cal.5th 488, 492 (2020). 4. The Constitution requires that any “statute, court rule, or other authority . . . shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.” Id. § 3(b)(2). 1 Unless otherwise specified, all future statutory references in this Petition are to the California Government Code. - 3 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. Respondents are withholding public records in violation of the CPRA. Since October 2023, the Petitioner has submitted multiple narrow requests to Respondents for public records regarding the operations of fraternities at Cal Poly. To ensure the individual privacy rights of fraternity members, Plaintiff specifically excluded any personally identifiable information that directly relates to any particular student from each of her requests, such as names. Plaintiff’s request was limited to the addresses of Cal Poly’s fraternity houses, including satellite fraternity houses, and their fraternity affiliation; and addresses of “sanctioned events” held by fraternities from 7/1/2023 to 6/30/2024, which includes the academic year 2023-2024. 6. Respondents denied the Petitioner’s requests, claiming the records requested are exempt from disclosure and/or are “not public records”. 7. Despite Petitioner’s multiple requests, Respondents have repeatedly and unlawfully refused to disclose the requested records, making it necessary to file this action to enforce the public’s interest in disclosure of records documenting the operations of fraternities at a state university. Relief is required because, to date, Respondents have failed to meet their obligations under the CPRA. PARTIES 8. Petitioner is a member of the public under section 7920.515 and is beneficially interested in the outcome of these proceedings; Petitioner has a clear, present, and substantial right to the relief sought herein. 9. Respondent Board of Trustees of the California State University is a state agency under section 7920.540 that is in possession of public records subject to mandatory disclosure under the CPRA. - 4 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. Respondent Jeffrey Armstrong is the President of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo and is the public official who oversees the department that has denied Petitioner access to the requested records. In denying access to the records requested by Petitioner, Cal Poly’s representatives were acting on behalf of Armstrong, and Armstrong is the public official responsible for the denial of Petitioner’s requests and was acting at all relevant times for and on behalf of Cal Poly. He is sued in his official capacity. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. Under section 7923.000, “[a]ny person may institute a proceeding for injunctive or declarative relief, or for a writ of mandate . . . to enforce that person’s right under” the CPRA “to inspect or receive a copy of any public record or class of public records.” 12. According to section 7923.100, “Whenever it is made to appear, by verified petition to the superior court of the county where the records or some part thereof are situated, that certain public records are being improperly withheld from a member of the public, the court shall order the officer or other person charged with withholding the records to disclose those records or show cause why that person should not do so.” 13. The relief sought by the Petitioner is expressly authorized under sections 7923.000 and 7923.100, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1060 and 1085, et seq., and Article 1, section 3(b) and Article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution. 14. Venue is proper under Code of Civil Procedure sections 394 and 395 and Government Code section 7923.100. Petitioner is informed and believes that the records to which she seeks access are in San Luis Obispo County and that the acts and events giving rise to the claim occurred in San Luis Obispo County. STATEMENT OF FACTS - 5 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Cal Poly’s Fraternities 15. There are 19 recognized fraternities in the Interfraternity Council (“IFC”) at Cal Poly. One fraternity is suspended until Fall 2025; therefore 18 fraternities are currently in good standing. 16. Cal Poly provides funding for its fraternities including but not limited to staff members and a Greek Life office located on Cal Poly’s campus. 17. City of San Luis Obispo staff, through the course of their employment with the city, meet with members of Cal Poly’s sororities and fraternities and/or Cal Poly Greek Life staff throughout the academic year. 18. Cal Poly does not have a Greek Row, nor does it not provide fraternity housing to its fraternities, including main Chapter house facilities. Consequently, the burden for housing Cal Poly’s fraternities is shifted to off-campus locations in neighborhoods. 19. Most fraternities at Cal Poly occupy multiple fraternity houses, including their main Chapter house and “satellite” fraternity house(s) in San Luis Obispo, but do not own those homes. 20. Approximately 65 fraternity houses, including “satellite houses”, are documented Cal Poly fraternities in the IFC that host fraternity-related parties (“sanctioned events”) according to information available online including social media posts and /or a report filed by Cal Poly on October 1, 2023, as mandated by Assembly Bill 524: The Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act. (“AB 524”) Upon information and belief, apart from one fraternity that has a Chapter house in the county of San Luis Obispo at 740 W. Foothill, all other Cal Poly fraternities operate their main Chapter houses in the city of San Luis Obispo. 21. Upon information and belief, many complaints for noise to SLOPD during the academic years 2022 – 2024 were related to fraternity-related events (sanctioned events and/or - 6 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 parties) held at fraternity houses, including main Chapter houses and satellite fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo. 22. Upon information and belief, a large percentage of “unruly gathering” citations were issued by SLOPD to fraternity houses, including main Chapter houses and satellite houses, between 2022 and 2024. SLOMC § 9.13.030A, defines and unruly gathering as: “a gathering of twenty or more persons on private property that results in …“conduct that causes a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property in a significant segment of an immediate neighborhood, or presents a threat to the health and safety…” [which] shall include, but is not limited to, any or all of the following: a noise disturbance; obstruction of public streets or rights-of-way by people or vehicles; public drunkenness; unlawful possession of alcohol or drugs; serving alcohol to minors; fights; disturbances of the peace; urinating or defecating in public; setting off fireworks; vandalism; littering on public property or private property not belonging to the host of the gathering; presence of persons on rooftop areas not designed for occupancy; unpermitted live bands, amplified music or DJs; and throwing bottles or other objects or substances at law enforcement or any other person. conduct that causes a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property in a significant segment of an immediate neighborhood, or presents a threat to the health, welfare, and safety of those in attendance”. 23. Cal Poly student Carson Starkey died of acute alcohol poisoning at a satellite fraternity house on December 2, 2008, after fraternity-related hazing. According to court testimony, Starkey was among the pledges who were ordered by Sigma Alpha Epsilon leaders to drink large quantities of alcohol in a matter of minutes – some of whom were encouraged to vomit and keep drinking. Starkey’s blood-alcohol level was 0.44, or about five times the legal limit. 24. As a result of Starkey’s death, Cal Poly considered eliminating fraternities. Instead, Cal Poly President, Jeffrey Armstrong (“Armstrong”), implemented a deferred rush policy in 2010, whereby freshmen males at Cal Poly could not join fraternities until their second quarter in the winter instead of their first quarter in the fall. 25. Soon after the deferred recruitment policy was announced, representatives from the North American Interfraternity Conference (“NIC”), which represented 75 national fraternities, - 7 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 visited Cal Poly to meet with administrators and spurred a three-year campaign to restore recruitment of freshman fraternity members in the fall. 26. In 2013, Armstrong entered into an agreement called the Deferred Recruitment Compromise (“the Compromise”) with Cal Poly’s IFC President, United Sorority and Fraternity Council President, Panhellenic Council President, and Vice President for Student Affairs, Keith Humphrey. The Compromise set forth commitments for Cal Poly’s Greek Community and for Cal Poly’s Administration, including: • Fall 2013: Fraternities will have “More opportunities for students to visit Chapters and potentially receive a bid” to join a fraternity. “(Applicable to IFC only)” • Winter 2014: “Interim Policy regarding party registration (including satellite houses) and alcohol management” • Fall 2014: “Final policy regarding party registration” • Fall 2014: “Greek Row - Committed to begin early discussion regarding the feasibility of an on-campus Greek Row.” • Fall 2013: Cal Poly will “Eliminate deferred recruitment for all Chapters.” • Fall 2013: Cal Poly “Will work with the NIC to recruit more Chapters to campus (Applicable to IFC only)” • Fall 2014: Cal Poly “Will work with the Chancellor’s Office to explore Greek housing regulations.” A true and correct copy of the Deferred Recruitment Compromise is attached as Exhibit 1. 27. In Fall 2014, as mandated by the Compromise, Cal Poly implemented Party Registration Policy and Guidelines (“Cal Poly’s Policy”) for their sororities and fraternities, which require that fraternities host “parties” or sanctioned events at either (1) the Chapter facility, (2) a registered satellite house, or (3) a contracted third-party venue. A true and correct copy of the Party Registration Policy and Guidelines is attached as Exhibit 2. 28. A “satellite house” is defined by Cal Poly as “a house where a majority of occupants are fraternity members and/or anywhere the fraternity wants to host an official chapter event,” - 8 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 according to an email from Cal Poly’s Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life, Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola on October 26, 2023. A true and correct copy of the email is attached as Exhibit 3. 29. Cal Poly’s Policy, Article II (A) states “all off-campus parties must be held at either the chapter facility, registered satellite house, or a contracted third-party venue,” and defines “a satellite house” as “any residence where the majority of occupants are members of the chapter for the purpose of this policy.” 30. Cal Poly’s Policy, Article I state the following definition for “a party”: “A. In keeping with the Dean of Students Greek Life Alcohol and Drugs policy, one or more of the following points will define an alcohol-related event: i. The event occurs while at a chapter facility or satellite house, ii. During a fraternity or sorority event, iii. In any situation sponsored or endorsed by the chapter, iv. At any event an observer would associate with the fraternity or sorority.” 31. Parties held by fraternities must be registered pursuant to Cal Poly’s Policy, Article XI (H) which states: “Registration paperwork will include the following: i. Chapter(s) hosting ii. Date & Time iii. Location iv. Description & purpose of party v. Expected number of guests vi. Risk management policy vii. A copy of the liquor license and liability insurance for the 3rd party vendor, if hired to serve alcohol at the event. viii. Point of contact ix. Any required contracts x. Invited parties xi. Any advertisement that may be used” It is unclear whether “registration paperwork” refers to hard copies or if the information is submitted online, and/or where those records are located. - 9 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 32. AB 524 (Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (a)(7)), defines a “sanctioned event” as any event in which one of the following occurs: A. The institution deems the event to be sanctioned by a fraternity or sorority according to their campus policies and practices. B. The name of a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity or participating sorority or fraternity is used to market or publicize the event. C. The name of a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity or participating sorority or fraternity is displayed at the event. D. Official funds of a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity or participating sorority or fraternity are used for the purchase and reimbursement of food, beverages, supplies, venue-related costs, publicity, party rentals, damages or cleanup fees, or any other costs associated with the event. E. A campus-recognized sorority or fraternity or participating sorority or fraternity, or a benefactor officially affiliated with the sorority or fraternity, receives any portion of funds raised from attendance fees, ticket sales, or other forms of admission fees associated with the event. 33. Upon information and belief, Respondents have documentation for each main Chapter facility and each “registered satellite house” for its fraternities and sororities pursuant to Cal Poly’s Policy, including Article II (A) and Article XI (H). 34. Upon information and belief, sanctioned events at fraternity houses include, but are not limited to, parties hosting Cal Poly’s sororities because the Panhellenic Conference governing sororities prohibits parties with alcohol at sorority houses, rush recruitment, themed gatherings (TGs), live DJ events, beer die tournaments, and philanthropic events and/or fundraisers such as live music events that charge for admission. These fraternity-related parties (“sanctioned events”) can, and often do, include over a hundred people. They frequently occur in outdoor yards at fraternities, including satellite houses. 35. The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (“SLOMC”) and Zoning Regulations prohibit fraternity and sorority operations in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and require a conditional use permit for fraternity operations in R-3 and R-4 zones. San Luis Obispo defines a fraternity as a “Residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational association that is - 10 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings.” (SLOMC Ch. 17.156.014) 36. Cal Poly continues to recruit new fraternity Chapters to their campus without making provisions for legal locations for its fraternity houses. In 2016, an eight-year expansion plan was approved to invite four new IFC fraternity Chapters to Cal Poly. The plan was created by a committee including IFC members and Cal Poly staff such as the Dean of Students, the Assistant Director for Center of Leadership and Service, and the Fraternity and Sorority Life Coordinator. 37. The four new fraternities they recruited are Alpha Sigma Phi, Phi Gamma Delta, Phi Delta Theta and Pi Kappa Phi. None of the fraternity houses for these fraternities in the city of San Luis Obispo are in legally permitted locations. • Alpha Sigma Phi has its main Chapter house at 1218 & 1220 Bond Street, in an R-1 residential neighborhood. It also has a satellite house at 299 Albert Drive, in an R-1 residential neighborhood. Each of these locations has held sanctioned events and have received multiple noise complaints to SLOPD since the fraternity moved in. • Phi Gamma Delta has its main Chapter house at 1229 Fredericks Street, it an R-2 residential neighborhood. This location has hosted sanctioned events and has received multiple noise complaints to SLOPD since the fraternity moved in. • Phi Delta Theta has its main Chapter house at 260 Chaplin Lane, in an R-1 residential neighborhood. It also has satellite houses at 470 Grand Avenue, which is an R-1 residential neighborhood, and 568 Ellen Way, which is an R-2 residential neighborhood. Each of these locations has hosted sanctioned events and has received multiple noise complaints to SLOPD since the fraternity moved in. - 11 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • Pi Kappa Phi has its main fraternity house in the county of San Luis Obispo at 740 W. Foothill and is the only fraternity at Cal Poly located outside of the city limits of San Luis Obispo. Pi Kappa Phi has other satellite houses in R-1 residential neighborhoods in the city including 66 Rafael Way, which has held sanctioned events, and has received multiple noise complaints to SLOPD since the fraternity moved in. 38. Upon information and belief, there are over 50 fraternity houses including satellite houses for Cal Poly’s fraternities in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo that held sanctioned events in those neighborhoods between September 2022 and June 2024. 39. Upon information and belief, there are approximately 10 non-permitted fraternity houses, including satellite houses, for Cal Poly’s fraternities in R-3 and R-4 zones in San Luis Obispo that hosted sanctioned events in those neighborhoods between September 2022 and June 2024. 40. Upon information and belief, only six of Cal Poly’s 19 recognized fraternities in the IFC have permitted fraternity locations for their main Chapter house facility in San Luis Obispo. One of those 19 fraternities is working with the County to gain permits for a location at 740 W. Foothill, but the main Chapter houses for each of the remaining 12 fraternities are located within the city of San Luis Obispo. 41. Upon information and belief, the main Chapter houses for many of Cal Poly’s fraternities are considered “satellite houses” and are R-1 and R-2 in residential neighborhoods. 42. On or about October 25, 2023, Petitioner requested copies of the following public records pursuant to the CPRA: “a list of every satellite fraternity house, with their address and fraternity affiliation, from the time period of August 1, 2020, to the present.” A true and correct copy of the request is attached as Exhibit 4. - 12 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 43. On or about November 6, 2023, Records Access Officer, Maren Hufton, denied the Petitioner’s request on behalf of Respondents stating: “Cal Poly has conducted a reasonable search for these records under Government Code §7922.535 and has determined that the records you seek are exempt from production under the Public Records Act and will not be produced. Cal. Gov’t Code §§7922.000; 7927.705; 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.” The message from Ms. Hufton described the CPRA and stated, “The addresses of satellite fraternity houses (i.e. student residential addresses - which is considered student contact/directory information) and their fraternity affiliations do not contribute to the public's understanding of the university's business and therefore is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.” The message also cited exemptions under 34 CFR §99.3, U.S.C. § 1232g, The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, (“FERPA”), and did not describe the context in which FERPA applies to the records requested by Petitioner. The Petitioner did not request any personally identifiable information that directly relates to a particular student, or that would identify a specific student with reasonable certainty. The message also cited the “catch all” exemption §7922.000 but did not clearly demonstrate based on the facts of this particular case that the public interest in nondisclosure is outweighed by disclosure. Finally, the message directed the Petitioner to Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report, which included lists of sanctioned events for each fraternity and sorority during the 2022-2023 academic year, including the date, time and address location of each event, and stated: “The public interest in disclosure of the requested information is further reduced as there is already publicly available information about the location of the events and activities of Cal Poly recognized fraternities and sororities. In compliance with AB524 (Ed Code § 66310 et seq), Cal Poly has publicly posted its 2022-2023 Campus Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act Report at the below web address: https://greeklife.calpoly.edu/reports” A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit 5. - 13 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 44. On or about December 11, 2023, Petitioner messaged Respondents, and again sought records pursuant to the CPRA. Petitioner stated: “The exemptions you listed do not apply to the records I requested, as outlined below. I am, therefore, renewing my request that you provide to me a list of every Cal Poly satellite fraternity house, with their address and fraternity affiliation, from the period of August 1, 2020, to the present date.” The Petitioner submitted legislation and case law in support of her request for records, which she claimed were not subject to any exemptions under the CPRA. Petitioner also stated: “The fact that the addresses satellite fraternity houses are publicly available on Cal Poly’s website does not lessen Cal Poly’s obligation to provide a complete and current list of addresses for satellite fraternity houses according to my public records request. One major issue that is overlooked by Cal Poly is that the addresses of fraternities and sanctioned events that take place at those fraternities, including at satellite fraternity houses, are posted retrospectively for the previous academic year, in this case from August 2022 - June 2023. It is not a complete list to include the satellite fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo for this academic year.” “…. Meanwhile, in August 2023, multiple new satellite fraternity houses emerged in our lower-density (R-1 and R-2) residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo for this academic year of 2023-2024. They have their Greek letters posted on their property and/or fly their fraternity flags, and they host parties and other events. It seems evident that they are satellite fraternity houses but have just recently begun to operate as such, therefore they are not listed on Cal Poly’s AB 524 report posted online so there is no official recognition of their existence. Thus, I made a public records request to include the current list of satellite fraternity houses and their affiliations up until the present date. Regardless of my reasoning, one’s motivation to justify a public records request is not required. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128, 139 Cal.App.4th 1356: “[U]nless exempted, all public records may be examined by any member of the public, often the press, but conceivably any person with no greater interest than idle curiosity.” Based on the facts of this matter and case law, Cal Poly is unable to meet their burden of demonstrating a clear overbalance on the side of non-disclosure and must provide the records I requested. Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarification about my request.” A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit 6. - 14 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 45. On or before December 21, 2023, Records Access Officer, Maren Hufton, responded to Petitioner’s request on behalf of Respondents by claiming that the records sought are related to “independent organizations” and “are not public records” subject to the CPRA Act: “The addresses of “satellite fraternity houses” (i.e., student addresses) and their fraternity affiliations are not records regarding the conduct of the university’s business. These fraternities are independent organizations. To the extent that the university may have information concerning their addresses, disclosure of such records does not contribute to the public's understanding of the university's business and therefore these are not public records to be disclosed under the public records act.” The message stated further, even if the requested records were construed as public records, the records would be subject to a list of exemptions described in the abstract and did not indicate how they apply to the records requested by the Petitioner, below: • “Materials that reflect student education records or may violate student privacy. Cal. Govt. Code §§7927.705, 7922.000; 21 U.S.C. §1232g. • General Privacy Rights. Cal. Govt. Code §7927.705; Cal. Const. Art. 1, §1.2 • Records where the public interest against disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Cal. Govt. Code §7922.000.” The message also referenced the AB 524 Report, which included a list of all “Affiliated Chapter Houses” according to the definition of AB 524 and Calif. Ed. Code § 66312(a)(3). This definition is limited to residences on or off campus that are owned by the institution of higher education but occupied by a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity - of which there are none at Cal Poly - or any residences located on or off campus that are owned and occupied by the campus-recognized sorority or fraternity. Only seven fraternity Chapter houses were listed by Cal Poly in its AB 524 Report. A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit 7. B. Assembly Bill 524: The Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act 46. In February 2021, AB 524 (Education Code § 66310 et seq) was introduced with the aim to increase transparency between campus-affiliated Greek organizations and the public. The legislation requires that all colleges and universities in California report various information - 15 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 regarding their sorority and fraternity organizations and members by posting the information “in a prominent location on the college’s Greek Life homepage on or before October 1, 2023, and annually thereafter.” The information is required to be archived and available to the public for a minimum of 10 years. 47. During the third reading of the Assembly Bill in the Senate on June 14, 2022, the Senate acknowledged the privacy laws under FERPA, and found that the disclosure of the location, date, and time of sanctioned events does not violate FERPA. On the passing of the Assembly Bill on August 15, 2022, it was specifically noted, "AB 524 will achieve transparency while respecting students' right to privacy as provided by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act by only providing non-identifiable information. These common-sense provisions strengthen public safety of higher education communities." AB 524 was approved unanimously by the California Senate and signed by the governor on Sept. 13, 2022. 48. AB 524 states “…each institution of higher education shall include in the institution’s requirements for campus recognition of each campus-recognized sorority or fraternity, both of the following requirements: (1) (A) A requirement that the campus-recognized sorority or fraternity shall submit to the institution on or before July 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, all of the following: … (x) The location, date, and time of any sanctioned event. (2) A requirement that any campus-recognized sorority or fraternity that does not comply with paragraph (1) be suspended from campus recognition.” Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A)(x)(2).” - 16 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 49. California State University (“CSU”) created a template for its school campus locations to prepare AB 524 reports to streamline the reporting process for compliance with the requirements of AB 524. A true and correct copy of the CSU Template is attached as Exhibit #8. 50. The template includes a section titled “Sanctioned Events Status” with subheadings that: “Includes any disciplinary actions” and “Meets Bill Requirements (x) & (3)(A,B)”. There are columns with titles for the following information to be filled in: • “Chapter (alpha order)” • “Date” • “Time” • “Event Name” • “Address (On and Off-campus)” (emphasis added) • “If disciplinary action occurred against the Chapter. Please indicate total number of disciplinary actions against the organization” 51. On or about October 1, 2023, Cal Poly published its AB 524 report on its Greek Life website. On the page titled “Sanctioned Events Status”, Cal Poly did not fill in the information directly on the template form but provided hyperlinks to corresponding spreadsheets for each sorority and fraternity. Each spreadsheet included the dates, times, and address locations of sanctioned events held by the Greek organizations for the previous academic year, September 2022 – June 2023. A true and correct copy of Cal Poly’s “Sanctioned Events Status” page for their AB 524 report is attached as Exhibit 9. 52. On or about November 8, 2024, the San Luis Obispo Community Development Department and Code Enforcement (“Code Enforcement”) became aware of Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report and the information related to the locations of sanctioned events held by Cal Poly’s sororities and fraternities. Many of the sanctioned events listed in Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report were at houses in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo, which is prohibited by the SLOMC and Zoning Regulations. - 17 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 53. Subsequently, the City of San Luis Obispo, including Code Enforcement Supervisor, John Mezzapesa and his staff, reached out to Cal Poly’s Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life, Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola, to discuss the SLOMC and Zoning Regulations related to the operations of Cal Poly’s sororities and fraternities. 54. Upon information and belief, Mr. Mezzapesa met with Cal Poly staff and members of Cal Poly’s fraternities and sororities to explain that the SLOMC and Zoning Regulations prohibit fraternity operations in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods and that fraternities must obtain a conditional use permit for operations, which are only allowed in R-3 or R-4 zones. 55. Upon information and belief, in spring of 2024, Code Enforcement began sending Notices of Violation and Advisory Letters to properties for illegal fraternity operations, citing a violation of the SLOMC and Zoning Ordinance. Code Enforcement continued to investigate illegal fraternity operations and send additional Notices of Violation and/or Advisory Letters to properties with confirmed illegal fraternity operations and/or illegal fraternity events. 56. Upon information and belief, some property owners and property management companies contacted Code Enforcement and/or Cal Poly about the alleged fraternity operations after they received the Notices of Violation and/or Advisory Letters from the City of San Luis Obispo. Some property owners claimed they did not know that their property was considered a fraternity house and/or did not want their property to be associated as a fraternity house. 57. Upon information and belief, Cal Poly staff notified the City of San Luis Obispo staff, including Code Enforcement, that Cal Poly will no longer keep track of its satellite fraternity houses or share that information with the City. The main Chapter houses for many of Cal Poly’s fraternities are considered satellite fraternity houses because they are not permitted, even though they operate as - 18 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 full-fledged fraternity houses. Many satellite fraternities also host fraternity-related events and parties and operate as full-fledged fraternities. 58. On or about early July 2024, Cal Poly edited its AB 524 report, “Sanctioned Events Status” page, and removed the addresses of sanctioned events held by its sororities and fraternities under the “Address (On and Off-campus)” column. Cal Poly replaced the addresses of the events with “San Luis Obispo”. A true and correct copy of the before and after reports for three Cal Poly fraternities is attached as Exhibit #10. C. Petitioner Continued to Request Records Pursuant to the CPRA 59. On or about July 22, 2024, Petitioner requested copies of the following public records pursuant to the CPRA: “1. A list of every satellite fraternity house for Cal Poly's fraternities with their address and fraternity affiliation, from 8/1/2020 to the present date, 7/22/2024. 2. A list of sanctioned events held by each Cal Poly fraternity and sorority from 7/1/2023 to 7/1/2024, including the date, time, and address of each event, a description and purpose of the event, the expected number of guests, and risk management policy for each event. Cal Poly's Party Registration Policy and Guidelines ("Cal Poly's policy") for fraternities and sororities require "All off-campus parties must be held at either the chapter facility, registered satellite house, or a contracted third-party venue." It defines a satellite house as "any residence where a majority of occupants are members for the purpose of this policy." Cal Poly's policy also requires that fraternities and sororities register their parties with the Greek Life office for review by the Coordinators of Fraternity and Sorority Life. The information provided to Cal Poly by each fraternity and sorority includes the chapter(s) hosting the event, the date and time, the location, the description and purpose of the party, the expected number of guests, and the risk management policy, etc. I am not requesting any information identifying any particular student, such as a point of contact or invited parties.” A true and correct copy of the request is attached as Exhibit #11. 60. On or about August 1, 2024, Records Access Officer, Maren Hufton responded to Petitioner’s request on behalf of the Respondents by a written message that stated: - 19 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “As to Request #1, Cal Poly has reviewed your request for records under Government Code §7922.535 and has determined that the records you seek are not public records and therefore are not subject to the California Public Records Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §7920.530).” The message contained new information, not included in Respondents’ previous messages: “It should also be noted that Cal Poly does not possess a “list of satellite fraternity house addresses” and it is not obligated to create such a document to respond to a public records request.” . . . “Furthermore, Cal Poly no longer recognizes fraternity or sorority “satellite houses”, therefore such information is no longer collected by the University.” 61. Contained in the same written message on or about August 1, 2024, related to Petitioner’s Request #2, Respondents stated that “no single existing record or file meets the criteria of your request” but that some of the requested information “may be able to be extracted” for which Petitioner must bear the full cost, and it would be calculated based on the programmer’s hourly rate including benefits. Respondents continued to claim the same exemptions in previous messages without any context about how they relate to Petitioner’s request. The exemptions were listed as follows: • “Materials that reflect student education records or may violate student privacy. Cal. Govt. Code §§7927.705, 7922.000; 21 U.S.C. §1232g. • General Privacy Rights. Cal. Govt. Code §7927.705; Cal. Const. Art. 1, §1.2 • Records where the public interest against disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Cal. Govt. Code §7922.000.” Respondents suggested that Petitioner wait until Cal Poly publishes their AB 524 Report on October 1, 2024, which would contain “some of the information” requested but noted “that the location of a sanctioned event must be held at a chapter house or at a 3rd party venue.” This seemed to indicate Cal Poly’s Policy Article II (A) was altered to remove “registered satellite houses”. It’s unclear whether Cal Poly would include sanctioned events at satellite houses that were had been registered with Cal Poly’s Greek Life office and held during the 2023 – 2024 academic year in its AB 524 Report to be filed on or before October 1, 2024. A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit #12. - 20 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 62. During an amendment of AB 524 in the Senate on May 23, 2022, the wording of Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A) changed from requiring that the institution collect from the sorority or fraternity to requiring that the sorority or fraternity submit to the institution the information described under Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A) on or before July 1, 2023 and annually thereafter. Failure to do so requires that the sorority or fraternity be suspended from campus recognition. Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(2). Based on the requirement that each sorority and fraternity at Cal Poly submit to Cal Poly, the date, time and location of any sanctioned event held during the previous academic year (August 2023 – June 2024) on or before July 1, 2024, the Respondents should be in possession of the information requested by Petitioner in the form of a list or documentation provided by its fraternities pursuant to Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A). 63. On or about August 1, 2024, Petitioner requested copies of the following public records pursuant to the CPRA: “a list of sanctioned events held by each Cal Poly fraternity in the Interfraternity Council from 7/1/2023 to 6/30/2024, including the date, time, and address of each event.” Petitioner cited the requirement outlined in Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A). that mandates each fraternity submit the information to Cal Poly on or before July 1, 2024, by uploading a list or a spreadsheet of the sanctioned events. Therefore, the information could easily be provided to the Petitioner in a timely manner without any specialized research. Petitioner noted, “The academic year is starting soon, and time is of the essence. If Cal Poly refuses to provide the information I have requested, I will have no choice but to seek relief from the Court to compel disclosure, including attorney fees and costs.” A true and correct copy of the request is attached as Exhibit #13. 64. On or about August 12, 2024, Records Access Officer, Maren Hufton responded to Petitioner’s request on behalf of the Respondents by a written message that stated Cal Poly “has determined that your request, either in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records”. - 21 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The message contends that fraternities do not provide the university with a comprehensive list of their sanctioned events, that the events are reported when they register for events individually through Cal Poly’s “event registration system”. “It is from this system/database that the reportable sanctioned event information is extracted for the annual AB 524 Report.” The message stated that the process to extract and redact those records would take time but did not provide an estimated date or time frame. Furthermore, Respondents indicated “most of the records will be subject to exemptions…” and included a list of exemptions, as follows: • “Materials that reflect student education records or may violate student privacy. Cal. Govt. Code §§7927.705, 7922.000; 21 U.S.C. §1232g. • General Privacy Rights. Cal. Govt. Code §7927.705; Cal. Const. Art. 1, §1. • Records where the public interest against disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Cal. Govt. Code §7922.000.” The message made clear that Respondents would not release the addresses in the records sought by Petitioner. A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit #14. 65. It has been over 11 months since Petitioner first requested records pursuant to the CPRA, and Respondents have continued to refuse to produce that the addresses of Cal Poly’s satellite fraternity houses, including main Chapter houses not owned by the fraternity corporation, and the addresses where fraternities have held sanctioned events. Respondents have violated the CPRA by wrongfully refusing to produce the requested records. SUMMARY OF LEGAL AUTHORITY 66. The California Constitution and CPRA require state and local agencies to make any public record available for inspection or copying upon request unless the record falls within a specific exemption from disclosure. Cal. Const., art. I § 3(b)(1), (b)(7); §§ 7922.000, 7922.525, 7922.530. - 22 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 67. “‘Public records’ includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” § 7920.530(a). 68. “Nothing in” the CPRA “shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records,” and an agency “shall make the records promptly available.” §§ 7922.500, 7922.530(a). 69. The CPRA provides that when it is shown that public records are being improperly withheld, “the court shall order the officer or other person charged with withholding the records to disclose those records or show cause why that person should not do so.” § 7923.100. 70. According to the CPRA, “If the court finds that the public official’s decision to refuse disclosure is not justified . . . the court shall order the public official to make the record public.” § 7923.110(a). 71. There is no exemption generally applicable to the records requested by Petitioner, and Respondents have no right to continue withholding them. 72. The CPRA further imposes on local agencies a “duty to assist” any member of public who makes a records request, such that an agency “shall do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances”: 1) Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated. 2) Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist. 3) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought. § 7922.600(a). 73. Respondents did not assist Petitioner “to identify records and information that are responsive to the request,” “describe the information technology and physical location in which the - 23 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 record exists” or provide “suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.” See § 7922.600(a). 74. Petitioner has performed all conditions preceding the filing of this action and exhausted all remedies to obtain access to the public records requested from Respondents. 75. Petitioner seeks attorney fees and court costs as required by the CPRA. See § 7923.115(a). 76. Respondents’ violations of law set forth above will continue unless and until they are commanded by this Court to produce the public records requested and to not engage in such further violations of law by a declaratory judgment finding their conduct unlawful. Additionally, absent injunctive relief, Respondents will continue to withhold public information as they have done here, resulting in great injury to Petitioner and the public at large by depriving them of immediate access to information vital to the public interest. 77. Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law because the relief she seeks does not consist of monetary compensation but rather the enforcement of her statutory and constitutional rights of access, and the harm she has suffered through Respondents’ refusal to provide access to information that is required to be disclosed under California law cannot be compensated through an award of monetary damages. CAUSE OF ACTION For Violations of the California Public Records Act and Article I, § 3 of the California Constitution (Against All Respondents) 78. Petitioner realleges and incorporates by this reference Paragraphs 1 through 77 above as though set forth herein in full. 79. Petitioner’s requests describe public records as defined by the CPRA. - 24 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 80. Respondents violated and continue to violate the CPRA and Article I, Section 3(b) of the California Constitution by improperly withholding records responsive to those requests for 11 months and counting. 81. Respondents have failed to and continue to fail to demonstrate that the public records requested by Petitioner qualify for any exemption from disclosure or any authorized delay in disclosure. 82. Respondents have repeatedly violated and continue to violate the CPRA’s mandate that agencies “shall make [public] records promptly available,” § 7922.530(a), and that agencies may not “delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records,” § 7922.500. 83. Respondents failed to assist Petitioner “to identify records and information that are responsive to the request,” “describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist,” and/or to provide “suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.” § 7922.600(a). 84. An actual controversy exists as to whether the public records requested by Petitioner must be immediately disclosed. 85. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to obtain the public records she has requested, other than this Petition. Petitioner is entitled to institute proceedings for a writ of mandate and for declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce her rights and the public’s rights to obtain records responsive to Petitioner’s requests. Furthermore, Petitioner is entitled to have the proceedings resolved on an expedited basis consistent “with the object of securing a decision to these matters at the earliest possible time.” § 7923.005. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Petitioner prays as follows: - 25 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. For a writ of mandate and injunction ordering Respondents to provide all records responsive to Petitioner’s CPRA requests as set forth above; 2. Alternatively, if the Court does not immediately order production of the records requested, that it order Respondents to show cause why the records should not be released and to prepare a log of withheld records, and that it thereafter issue a writ of mandate and injunction ordering the requested records to be disclosed; 3. For an order granting declaratory and injunctive relief, including, but not limited to: a) Declaring that the withheld materials are public records as defined by section 7920.530, subdivision (a) in that they contain information relating to the conduct of the people’s business, prepared, owned, used, or retained by Respondents and are subject to disclosure; b) Declaring that Respondents violated the CPRA by denying the public records request and failing to promptly make the requested records available to Petitioner and the public, and; c) Declaring that Respondents violated the CPRA by failing to state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available within 10 days of receiving the requests; d) Declaring that Respondents violated the CPRA by failing to assist Petitioner (1) to identify records and information that are responsive to the request, (2) by describing the information technology and physical location in which the records exist, and/or (3) by providing suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought; e) Enjoining Respondents to provide the requested records; - 26 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. For a finding and determination that Petitioner is the prevailing party in this action; 5. For an award of attorney fees and costs to Petitioner pursuant to section 7923.115, subdivision (a) or any other applicable law; 6. For judgment accordingly; and 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: 362 From:Marx, Jan Sent:Sunday, July 6, 2025 5:38 PM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Tassajara/Ramona Neighborhood / Please Act to Protect All Neighborhoods Thank you for all you do to highlight this important issue, Kathie Jan From: kathie walker < Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:45 PM To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Tassajara/Ramona Neighborhood / Please Act to Protect All Neighborhoods Dear City Councilmembers, The quality of life issues related to illegal fraternity operations have gravely affected the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods near campus. Over the past few years, the illegal fraternities have spread to other single-family residential neighborhoods further away, west of Santa Rosa Street, including Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF) and the Ramona/Tassajara neighborhood. It is probably not a coincidence that long- term residents/families are selling their homes and leaving the neighborhood. One family on Ramona Drive complained about an illegal fraternity behind them at 311 Foothill Blvd, which was identified in Cal Poly's AB 524 report as holding fraternity events. The property owner received a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations at 311 Foothill, but the noise from the fraternity continued. Last year, that family on Ramona Drive sold their home and moved away because the noise in the neighborhood was too much to take. A different family living on S. Tassajara reached out to RQN last year because Pi Kappa Phi is operating behind/diagonal from their home at 66 S. Rafael, and constant noise and disruptive fraternity events for several years have made their lives miserable. The family on S. Tassajara and the historic architectural renovation of their home were featured in SLO Life Magazine in early 2019, before the fraternity moved in behind them. Here is a link to the article, "As One", pages 54 - 62 https://issuu.com/slolifemagazine/docs/slolifefebmar2019lr. Even before the residents on S. Tassajara contacted RQN, I sent documentation to the City that showed Pi Kappa Phi was illegally operating at 66 S. Rafael, with social media posts that advertised fraternity-related events specifically at 66 S. Rafael since Fall 2022. The City did not take any action. Pi Kappa Phi is still operating at that address, including rush events during the 2024-2025 school year that were documented with video, with large Greek letters in their driveway during the event. I have continued to send documentation of fraternity events advertised on social media to the City without any resolution. There is also a significant history of noise complaints for 66 S. Rafael. Last week, a house occupied by a family was listed for sale at 53 S. Rafael, shown below in the black box. This house is across the street diagonally from Pi Kappa Psi's illegal fraternity house at 66 Rafael (red box, middle). Last year, another fraternity moved in directly behind 53 Rafael at 311 Del Mar Court (red box, far left) and has held fraternity-related events there. Another fraternity, Phi Gamma Delta or FIJI, is operating illegally, a block away at 451 Ramona Drive (red box, far right). 363 When fraternities illegally operate in neighborhoods, it starts with one or two. If the City doesn't stop them, more move into the neighborhood because there is an implicit message that it's okay, because other fraternities are also operating nearby. That's how the Alta Vista neighborhood became overrun with dozens of illegal fraternities, and Albert Drive has become the new Greek Row. Fraternity operations are not compatible with the lifestyle of families living in a residential neighborhood, and they are moving away. "Families" is defined broadly, including all sorts of groups who would traditionally live in a neighborhood with the expectation that they are not living next to or within earshot of a fraternity house, which is the equivalent of a downtown bar & nightclub moving into the neighborhood. There are constant disruptions from extremely noisy parties, increased traffic of 100+ loud, often intoxicated guests coming and going, vandalism, and other nuisances such as trespassing, vomiting, and using private yards as a toilet. The City, in its response to the Grand Jury on 6/20/2025, cited repeated attempts to work with Cal Poly to gain compliance, including the efforts listed below, which have not worked. I have included some additional items, in italics, for context:  January 10, 2024: City staff met with Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the complaints received regarding Fraternities and Sororities.  April 10, 2024: Follow-up meeting with Assistant Director of Fraternity & Sorority Life regarding the City's response to unpermitted Fraternities.  April 16, 2024: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities.  July 2024: Cal Poly edited its online AB 524 Reports and erased the addresses of all fraternity events for the 2023-2024 academic year. 364  August 2024: Community Development Director met with Cal Poly leadership to discuss the issue of Fraternities/Sororities and land use requirements for houses.  October 2024: Fraternities held fraternity rush events at their illegal fraternity house locations in R1/R2 neighborhoods, and the dates, times, and addresses of some of those illegal fraternity events were sent to the City, copied at the bottom of this email. The fraternities continued to hold fraternity parties and other events at their illegal fraternity houses throughout the academic year, and not a single fraternity ceased operations.  January 12, 2025: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities.  January 17 - 26, 2025: Fraternities ignored the City's presentation and held fraternity rush events at their illegal fraternity house locations in R1/R2 neighborhoods. Code Enforcement staff responded to addresses holding rush events, but when they approached some fraternity members at a check-in table with laptops in the front yard, the fraternity members denied that they were holding a rush event. Code Enforcement staff noted they were wearing shirts with Greek letters. Almost immediately, the fraternity members alerted other members at illegal fraternity houses in the neighborhood, which prompted other fraternities to move their check-in tables and laptops behind their fences. They then refused to answer the door to City staff, who heard the events in the backyards but did not cite them.  March 4, 2025: Meeting with City staff and Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the ongoing issues regarding Fraternities and Sororities and the upcoming "St. Fratty's Day" event. Cal Poly leadership and fraternities have ignored the City and have shown that they are not going to cooperate to solve this problem. The Grand Jury made clear that the City has not enforced its zoning ordinances and municipal codes, and ver 50 illegal fraternities have continued to operate illegally. Even more have been established in the neighborhoods over the past two years. In January 2025, I wrote to the City, including Christine Dietrick, and sent information about a case about 30 years ago when the City of SLO prosecuted a fraternity for operating without a use permit. I wanted Ms. Dietrick to use the same strategy to bring the most egregious violators into compliance. Nothing ever happened. In case you believe the situation is exaggerated because we are older residents, I encourage you to read the correspondence and listen to the 6/25/2025 testimony to the Planning Commission from younger residents near the Delta Upsilon fraternity house at 720 Foothill Blvd. A young property manager representing 28 residents of an apartment (1/3 college students and 2/3 working adults), and another young resident living nearby, spoke about the non-stop disruptive noise, lack of cooperation, and property damage they have dealt with from the fraternity members and their guests. They described what we live with constantly during the academic year. The difference is that Delta Upsilon was permitted and is only one fraternity house, while our neighborhood has over 30 illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternities. We are literally surrounded by numerous illegal fraternities, and cannot rest or sleep on weekends during the academic year. We have relied on you to solve the problem. I've been sending videos since Fall 2021, and the situation has not improved! Below is a link to some testimony from younger folks at the Planning Commission hearing on June 25, 2025: Planning Commission 6_25_2025 testimony.mp4 The constant stress and lack of sleep are EXTREMELY taxing on the mental and physical well-being of those living near the illegal fraternities. The younger folks who testified in the link above, confirmed the constant noise 365 "is far more than an annoyance. It's a violaiton of their quiet enjoyment, and directly affects their health, well- being and livihood." It is devastating to the health and welfare of those living nearby! You are our elected representatives and have the authority to direct the City Attorney to get the addresses from Cal Poly by filing a Writ of Mandamus with the SLO Superior Court. I am asking you to please do that. With the addresses, the City can bring the property owners into compliance with the law to restore our neighborhoods so people, including college students, can rest and sleep. Please ask the City Manager and City Attorney to take the necessary steps to get the addresses and solve this enormous problem that is worsening each year. In 2024, I prepared a draft Writ of Mandate and Points and Authorities Memorandum to compel Cal Poly to publish the addresses of its illegal fraternities. I am a paralegal and not a lawyer, plus I have not practiced for a long time, so the draft is not great, but it gives you an important timeline of events and history related to Cal Poly's fraternities. (Attached) Cal Poly's responses to my public records requests changed after each request I made, with a different excuse, and they never provided any information. The City can compel the release of the addresses by filing a Writ or similar action. Please take meaningful action to identify the illegal fraternities on file with Cal Poly's Greek Life office, and stop the illegal fraternity operations to restore our neighborhoods for the health and welfare of many residents impacted by illegal fraternities. Thank you, Kathie Walker Fall Rush Events at Illegal Fraternity Houses (The list only includes those that were documented.) Friday 10/4/2024: 1684-1688 Mill Street -R2 (Delta Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 281 Albert Drive -R1 (Delta Upsilon) MAIN SATELLITE HOUSE – It has a permitted house at 720 E. Foothill Blvd 248-250 Grand Ave -R1 (Theta Chi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE WITH 1844 MCCOLLUM (Shared Yards) 281 Hathway Ave -R1 (Kappa Sigma) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 348-350 Hathway Ave - R2 (Phi Sigma Kappa) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1525 Slack St -R1 (Sigma Pi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 2090 Hays - R1 (Sigma Epsilon) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1218-1220 Bond St - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1229 Fredericks - R1 (Phi Gamma Delta aka FIJI) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 654 & 658 Graves -R4 (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE Saturday 10/5/2024: 654 & 658 Graves -R4 (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 299 Albert - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) 12 Hathway - R1 (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1841 Slack St - R1 (Sigma Nu) 66 Rafael - R1 (Pi Kappa Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE IN THE CITY 1820 Hope - R1 (Theta Chi) Main Chapter House last year 2023-2024 322 Hathway - R2 (Kappa Sigma) 1908 Loomis - R1 (Phi Sigma Kappa) 1276 Bond St - R1 (Phi Kappa Psi) 589 Cuesta Drive - R1 (Delta Sigma Phi) 1555 Slack St - R1 (Sigma Pi) Sunday 10/6/2024 237 Albert Dr - R1 (Phi Kappa Psi) 124 Stenner - R4 (Sigma Pi) 171 Orange - R1 (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1646 Fredericks St - R1 (Zeta Beta Tau) 1868 Loomis -R1 (Delta Upsilon) 260 Chaplin - R1 (Phi Delta Theta) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 366 1632 Fredericks - R1 (Sigma Nu) 255 Chaplin - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) 367 From:kathie walker < Sent:Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:45 PM To:Stewart, Erica A; Shoresman, Michelle; Marx, Jan; Francis, Emily; Boswell, Mike; E-mail Council Website; Dietrick, Christine Subject:Tassajara/Ramona Neighborhood / Please Act to Protect All Neighborhoods Attachments:CPRA CAL POLY 2ND REQUEST.pdf; Writ of Mandate CPRA Cal Poly.pdf Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Dear City Councilmembers, The quality of life issues related to illegal fraternity operations have gravely affected the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods near campus. Over the past few years, the illegal fraternities have spread to other single-family residential neighborhoods further away, west of Santa Rosa Street, including Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF) and the Ramona/Tassajara neighborhood. It is probably not a coincidence that long- term residents/families are selling their homes and leaving the neighborhood. One family on Ramona Drive complained about an illegal fraternity behind them at 311 Foothill Blvd, which was identified in Cal Poly's AB 524 report as holding fraternity events. The property owner received a Notice of Violation for illegal fraternity operations at 311 Foothill, but the noise from the fraternity continued. Last year, that family on Ramona Drive sold their home and moved away because the noise in the neighborhood was too much to take. A different family living on S. Tassajara reached out to RQN last year because Pi Kappa Phi is operating behind/diagonal from their home at 66 S. Rafael, and constant noise and disruptive fraternity events for several years have made their lives miserable. The family on S. Tassajara and the historic architectural renovation of their home were featured in SLO Life Magazine in early 2019, before the fraternity moved in behind them. Here is a link to the article, "As One", pages 54 - 62 https://issuu.com/slolifemagazine/docs/slolifefebmar2019lr. Even before the residents on S. Tassajara contacted RQN, I sent documentation to the City that showed Pi Kappa Phi was illegally operating at 66 S. Rafael, with social media posts that advertised fraternity-related events specifically at 66 S. Rafael since Fall 2022. The City did not take any action. Pi Kappa Phi is still operating at that address, including rush events during the 2024-2025 school year that were documented with video, with large Greek letters in their driveway during the event. I have continued to send documentation of fraternity events advertised on social media to the City without any resolution. There is also a significant history of noise complaints for 66 S. Rafael. Last week, a house occupied by a family was listed for sale at 53 S. Rafael, shown below in the black box. This house is across the street diagonally from Pi Kappa Psi's illegal fraternity house at 66 Rafael (red box, middle). Last year, another fraternity moved in directly behind 53 Rafael at 311 Del Mar Court (red box, far left) and has held fraternity-related events there. Another fraternity, Phi Gamma Delta or FIJI, is operating illegally, a block away at 451 Ramona Drive (red box, far right). 368 When fraternities illegally operate in neighborhoods, it starts with one or two. If the City doesn't stop them, more move into the neighborhood because there is an implicit message that it's okay, because other fraternities are also operating nearby. That's how the Alta Vista neighborhood became overrun with dozens of illegal fraternities, and Albert Drive has become the new Greek Row. Fraternity operations are not compatible with the lifestyle of families living in a residential neighborhood, and they are moving away. "Families" is defined broadly, including all sorts of groups who would traditionally live in a neighborhood with the expectation that they are not living next to or within earshot of a fraternity house, which is the equivalent of a downtown bar & nightclub moving into the neighborhood. There are constant disruptions from extremely noisy parties, increased traffic of 100+ loud, often intoxicated guests coming and going, vandalism, and other nuisances such as trespassing, vomiting, and using private yards as a toilet. The City, in its response to the Grand Jury on 6/20/2025, cited repeated attempts to work with Cal Poly to gain compliance, including the efforts listed below, which have not worked. I have included some additional items, in italics, for context:  January 10, 2024: City staff met with Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the complaints received regarding Fraternities and Sororities.  April 10, 2024: Follow-up meeting with Assistant Director of Fraternity & Sorority Life regarding the City's response to unpermitted Fraternities.  April 16, 2024: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities.  July 2024: Cal Poly edited its online AB 524 Reports and erased the addresses of all fraternity events for the 2023-2024 academic year.  August 2024: Community Development Director met with Cal Poly leadership to discuss the issue of Fraternities/Sororities and land use requirements for houses. 369  October 2024: Fraternities held fraternity rush events at their illegal fraternity house locations in R1/R2 neighborhoods, and the dates, times, and addresses of some of those illegal fraternity events were sent to the City, copied at the bottom of this email. The fraternities continued to hold fraternity parties and other events at their illegal fraternity houses throughout the academic year, and not a single fraternity ceased operations.  January 12, 2025: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities.  January 17 - 26, 2025: Fraternities ignored the City's presentation and held fraternity rush events at their illegal fraternity house locations in R1/R2 neighborhoods. Code Enforcement staff responded to addresses holding rush events, but when they approached some fraternity members at a check-in table with laptops in the front yard, the fraternity members denied that they were holding a rush event. Code Enforcement staff noted they were wearing shirts with Greek letters. Almost immediately, the fraternity members alerted other members at illegal fraternity houses in the neighborhood, which prompted other fraternities to move their check-in tables and laptops behind their fences. They then refused to answer the door to City staff, who heard the events in the backyards but did not cite them.  March 4, 2025: Meeting with City staff and Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the ongoing issues regarding Fraternities and Sororities and the upcoming "St. Fratty's Day" event. Cal Poly leadership and fraternities have ignored the City and have shown that they are not going to cooperate to solve this problem. The Grand Jury made clear that the City has not enforced its zoning ordinances and municipal codes, and ver 50 illegal fraternities have continued to operate illegally. Even more have been established in the neighborhoods over the past two years. In January 2025, I wrote to the City, including Christine Dietrick, and sent information about a case about 30 years ago when the City of SLO prosecuted a fraternity for operating without a use permit. I wanted Ms. Dietrick to use the same strategy to bring the most egregious violators into compliance. Nothing ever happened. In case you believe the situation is exaggerated because we are older residents, I encourage you to read the correspondence and listen to the 6/25/2025 testimony to the Planning Commission from younger residents near the Delta Upsilon fraternity house at 720 Foothill Blvd. A young property manager representing 28 residents of an apartment (1/3 college students and 2/3 working adults), and another young resident living nearby, spoke about the non-stop disruptive noise, lack of cooperation, and property damage they have dealt with from the fraternity members and their guests. They described what we live with constantly during the academic year. The difference is that Delta Upsilon was permitted and is only one fraternity house, while our neighborhood has over 30 illegal fraternity houses operating as full-fledged fraternities. We are literally surrounded by numerous illegal fraternities, and cannot rest or sleep on weekends during the academic year. We have relied on you to solve the problem. I've been sending videos since Fall 2021, and the situation has not improved! Below is a link to some testimony from younger folks at the Planning Commission hearing on June 25, 2025: To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Planning Commission 6_25_2025 testimony.mp4 The constant stress and lack of sleep are EXTREMELY taxing on the mental and physical well-being of those living near the illegal fraternities. The younger folks who testified in the link above, confirmed the constant noise "is far more than an annoyance. It's a violaiton of their quiet enjoyment, and directly affects their health, well- being and livihood." It is devastating to the health and welfare of those living nearby! 370 You are our elected representatives and have the authority to direct the City Attorney to get the addresses from Cal Poly by filing a Writ of Mandamus with the SLO Superior Court. I am asking you to please do that. With the addresses, the City can bring the property owners into compliance with the law to restore our neighborhoods so people, including college students, can rest and sleep. Please ask the City Manager and City Attorney to take the necessary steps to get the addresses and solve this enormous problem that is worsening each year. In 2024, I prepared a draft Writ of Mandate and Points and Authorities Memorandum to compel Cal Poly to publish the addresses of its illegal fraternities. I am a paralegal and not a lawyer, plus I have not practiced for a long time, so the draft is not great, but it gives you an important timeline of events and history related to Cal Poly's fraternities. (Attached) Cal Poly's responses to my public records requests changed after each request I made, with a different excuse, and they never provided any information. The City can compel the release of the addresses by filing a Writ or similar action. Please take meaningful action to identify the illegal fraternities on file with Cal Poly's Greek Life office, and stop the illegal fraternity operations to restore our neighborhoods for the health and welfare of many residents impacted by illegal fraternities. Thank you, Kathie Walker Fall Rush Events at Illegal Fraternity Houses (The list only includes those that were documented.) Friday 10/4/2024: 1684-1688 Mill Street -R2 (Delta Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 281 Albert Drive -R1 (Delta Upsilon) MAIN SATELLITE HOUSE – It has a permitted house at 720 E. Foothill Blvd 248-250 Grand Ave -R1 (Theta Chi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE WITH 1844 MCCOLLUM (Shared Yards) 281 Hathway Ave -R1 (Kappa Sigma) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 348-350 Hathway Ave - R2 (Phi Sigma Kappa) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1525 Slack St -R1 (Sigma Pi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 2090 Hays - R1 (Sigma Epsilon) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1218-1220 Bond St - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1229 Fredericks - R1 (Phi Gamma Delta aka FIJI) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 654 & 658 Graves -R4 (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE Saturday 10/5/2024: 654 & 658 Graves -R4 (Zeta Beta Tau) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 299 Albert - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) 12 Hathway - R1 (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1841 Slack St - R1 (Sigma Nu) 66 Rafael - R1 (Pi Kappa Phi) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE IN THE CITY 1820 Hope - R1 (Theta Chi) Main Chapter House last year 2023-2024 322 Hathway - R2 (Kappa Sigma) 1908 Loomis - R1 (Phi Sigma Kappa) 1276 Bond St - R1 (Phi Kappa Psi) 589 Cuesta Drive - R1 (Delta Sigma Phi) 1555 Slack St - R1 (Sigma Pi) Sunday 10/6/2024 237 Albert Dr - R1 (Phi Kappa Psi) 124 Stenner - R4 (Sigma Pi) 171 Orange - R1 (Lambda Chi Alpha) 1646 Fredericks St - R1 (Zeta Beta Tau) 1868 Loomis -R1 (Delta Upsilon) 260 Chaplin - R1 (Phi Delta Theta) MAIN CHAPTER HOUSE 1632 Fredericks - R1 (Sigma Nu) 255 Chaplin - R1 (Alpha Sigma Phi) 1 Kathie Walker December 11, 2023 Maren Hufton and the Civil Rights and Compliance Office - Public Records Access Unit California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo pra@calpoly.edu RE: Second request for records under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) Dear Ms. Hufton and Cal Poly Records Custodian, On 10/26/2023, I submitted a public records request for the addresses of Cal Poly fraternity satellite houses and their fraternity affiliations. You denied my request on 11/6/2023, citing exemptions according to California Government Code §§ 7922.000; 7927.705; 20 U.S.C. §1232g. The exemptions you listed do not apply to the records I requested, as outlined below. I am, therefore, renewing my request that you provide to me a list of every Cal Poly satellite fraternity house, with their address and fraternity affiliation, from the time period of August 1, 2020, to the present date. I am making this request under the California Public Records Act. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. §1232g Ms. Hufton on behalf of Cal Poly (hereafter referred to as “Cal Poly”) claims that FERPA does not permit release of addresses of satellite fraternity houses and therefore the information is exempt from production under the CPRA according to California Government Code §7927.705. However, FERPA does not apply to the disclosure of the addresses of satellite fraternity houses. FERPA defines “education records” as “those records, files, documents, and other materials which (i) contain information directly related to a student; and (ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.”1 In other words, there are two essential criteria for a document to be confidential under FERPA: it must “directly relate” to a student, and it must be “maintained” by the institution. The “directly relate” prong of FERPA substantially narrows the scope of what FERPA covers. To be a confidential FERPA record, a document must not merely mention a student; it must actually be about that student. For example, in a January 2011 ruling, a Florida state court ordered the University of Florida to release tapes and transcripts of Student Senate meetings that the college was withholding under FERPA. The judge ruled that, although the documents contained the names and voices of students, they were not the records “of” any particular student for FERPA purposes.2 The records I requested do not directly relate to, or ask for, any information that identifies any particular student. There are 18 fraternities within the Interfraternity Council (IFC) at Cal Poly and each chapter has many members, with a total of over 2,000 members amongst the 18 fraternities. While many fraternities have what they consider a main house, they also have several other fraternity houses which are considered “satellite 1 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A). 2 Bracco v. Machen, No. 01-2009-CA-4444, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 5 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 8th Cir. Jan. 10, 2011). 2 fraternity houses”. In fact, most Cal Poly fraternity houses are satellite fraternity houses. Some of the “main” fraternity houses are considered a “satellite fraternity house” and are located within lower-density neighborhoods. Some fraternity members live in the main houses, some live in the satellite fraternity houses and some don’t live in either. I do not want to know the names of anyone who lives at any of the addresses and am not requesting any information that would link anyone to any address. I am simply requesting a current list of addresses of the satellite fraternity houses and their fraternity affiliations, without providing any other information related to the tenants or fraternity members living at any of those addresses. The Legislature in California specifically found that the addresses of satellite fraternity houses are not protected under the provisions of FERPA. In February 2021, California Assembly Bill 524 (AB 524), also known as the Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act, was first introduced with the aim to increase transparency between campus-affiliated Greek organizations and the public. The legislation requires that all colleges and universities report various information regarding their fraternity organizations and members by posting the information in a prominent location on the college’s Greek Life homepage on or before October 1, 2023, and annually thereafter. AB 524 requires that the publicly accessible information include the addresses of fraternities and the locations, dates, and hours of sanctioned events held by each fraternity. The sanctioned events held by Cal Poly fraternities are largely held at satellite fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo. AB 524 was approved unanimously by the California Senate and signed by the governor on Sept. 13, 2022. During the third reading of the Assembly Bill in the Senate on June 14, 2022, the Senate acknowledged the privacy laws under FERPA, and found that the disclosure of the addresses of fraternities and the disclosure of the location, date, and time of any sanctioned event does not violate FERPA. On the passing of the Assembly Bill on August 15, 2022, it was specifically noted, "AB 524 will achieve transparency while respecting students' right to privacy as provided by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act by only providing non- identifiable information. These common-sense provisions strengthen public safety of higher education communities." As a result of AB 524, Cal Poly published links on their Greek Life website which correspond to each of the 18 IFC fraternities, and includes addresses of satellite fraternity houses, with the dates and times of sanctioned events held by the fraternity organizations at each of those addresses for the previous academic year. Remarkably, in their refusal to my records request, Cal Poly admits that they have already disclosed the addresses of Cal Poly’s satellite fraternity houses to the public as legally required by AB 524, while also alleging that those addresses are protected under FERPA. In any event, FERPA does not provide an exemption for the addresses of satellite fraternity houses and their fraternity affiliations, therefore the records must be released as I have requested in my public records request. California Public Records Act (CPRA) The California Public Records Act (CPRA) establishes a presumptive right of access to any record created or maintained by a public agency that relates in any way to the business of the public agency, and the record must be disclosed unless a statutory exception is shown. Statutory exemptions from compelled disclosure under the CPRA are narrowly construed, and the government agency opposing disclosure bears the burden of proving that one or more of the exemptions apply in a particular case.3 3 Caldecott v. Superior Court (App. 4 Dist. 2015) 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 223, 243 Cal.App.4th 212 3 The CPRA includes two exceptions to general policy of disclosure of public records: materials expressly exempt from disclosure, and the “catchall exception” which allows government agency to withhold records if it can demonstrate that, on facts of particular case, public interest served by withholding records clearly outweighs public interest served by disclosure.4 California Government Code § 7922.000 and justification for withholding of records with the “catch-all exemption” According to the provision of § 7922.000 - sometimes known as the catch-all exemption - an agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this division, or that “on the facts of the particular case” the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. The privacy and catchall statutory exemptions from mandatory disclosure under the CPRA must be narrowly construed.5 Gov. Code §7922.000 only permits the public agency to withhold a record under the catch-all exemption of §7922.000 on the basis that "on the facts of the particular case" the balancing of interests clearly favors nondisclosure. The numerous cases examining this balancing test place the burden on the local agency to show that the public interest in confidentiality outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In fact, given the public policy involved, courts demand a demonstration of “clear overbalance” to justify non-disclosure.6 The courts have consistently construed exemptions from disclosure narrowly and agencies’ disclosure obligations broadly.7 Ambiguities in the CPRA must be interpreted in a way that maximizes the public’s access to information unless the Legislature has expressly provided otherwise.8 Because the public interest in nondisclosure must clearly outweigh the public interest in disclosure, if the interests are just about equal, the scales tip in favor of disclosure. The courts have consistently held that public interest in disclosure overrides alleged privacy interests. The following cases are some examples as they were subject to disclosure under the public interest exemption balancing test: • The addresses of residential customers who exceeded their water allocations. The water district’s claim that providing names and addresses of residential customers who exceeded their water allocations would expose those people to verbal or physical harassment was insufficient to justify refusal to provide access to public records.9 • The identities of purchasers of luxury suites in a university arena even though those donors requested anonymity. Public interest in disclosure of public records in possession of state university which revealed identities of private donors who had entered into license agreements allowing them to use luxury suites 4 Wyatt v. Kern High School Dist. (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2022) 296 Cal.Rptr.3d 476 ADD 5 Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (App. 2 Dist. 2012) 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 395, 202 Cal.App.4th 1250 6 Iloh v. Regents of University of California (App. 4 Dist. 2023) 303 Cal.Rptr.3d 709; Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court (App. 5 Dist. 2004) 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 517; California State University v. Superior Court (App. 5 Dist. 2001) 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 870; See also Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974) 42. Cal App. 3d 645, 657. 7 Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469, 476; New York Times Co. V. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.app.3d 1579, 1578; San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 762, 772-773 8 Sierra Club v. Superior Court of Orange County (2013) 57 Cal.4th 157, 175-176. 9 New York Times Co. V. Superior Court (App 2 Dist. 1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1579. 4 in multipurpose arena being built on university campus was not outweighed by public interest in nondisclosure under catchall exemption to disclosure requirements of CPRA.10 • Identification of personal information in applications for concealed weapons permits. Possibility that disclosure of information in applications did not outweigh people’s right to know, such that records would be within this section; people’s right to know would not be limited on basis of inchoate fear that some would violate law rather than have their names disclosed.11 • Names of pharmaceutical companies and others providing a drug used for lethal injection to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Speculative claims regarding privacy and security interests were insufficient to establish that the public interest served by nondisclosure clearly outweighed the public interest served by disclosure of the names of the pharmaceutical companies and others from which the CDCR sought to acquire sodium thiopental, a drug used as part of the three-drug lethal injection protocol.12 • Coroner's investigation report related to a police officer’s alleged suicide.13 • The identities of individuals granted criminal conviction exemptions to work in licensed daycare facilities and the facilities employing them.14 • Court records of a settlement between the insurer for a school district and a minor sexual assault victim.15 • Disclosure of county’s geographical information system (GIS) basemap.16 Cal Poly claims that the public interest in disclosure of the requested information “is further reduced as there is already publicly available information about the location of the events and activities of Cal Poly recognized fraternities” which was posted on Cal Poly’s Greek Life website in compliance with AB 524. The fact that the addresses satellite fraternity houses are publicly available on Cal Poly’s website does not lessen Cal Poly’s obligation to provide a complete and current list of addresses for satellite fraternity houses according to my public records request. One major issue that is overlooked by Cal Poly is that the addresses of fraternities and sanctioned events that take place at those fraternities, including at satellite fraternity houses, are posted retrospectively for the previous academic year, in this case from August 2022-June 2023. It is not a complete list to include the satellite fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo for this academic year. Furthermore, Cal Poly is not required to post their updated list online, with the addresses of current satellite fraternity houses that have surfaced, until October 1, 2024, nearly one year from now. Meanwhile, in August 2023, multiple new satellite fraternity houses emerged in our lower-density (R-1 and R-2) residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo for this academic year of 2023-2024. They have their Greek letters posted on their property and/or fly their fraternity flags, and they host parties and other events. It seems evident that they are satellite fraternity houses but have just recently begun to operate as such, therefore they are not listed on Cal Poly’s AB 524 report posted online so there is no official recognition of their existence. Thus, I made a public records request to include the current list of satellite fraternity houses and their affiliations 10 California State University v. Superior Court (2001) 56 Cal.App.4th 601 11 CBS, Inc. V. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 230 Cal.Rptr. 362 12 American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. Superior Court (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55. 13 Edais v. Superior Court (2023) 303 Cal.Rptr. 3d 722 14 CBS Broadcasting Inc., v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 892 15 Copley Press, Inc., v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 367 16 County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 374, 170 Cal.App.4th 1301. 5 up until the present date. Regardless of my reasoning, one’s motivation to justify a public records request is not required.17 Based on the facts of this matter and case law, Cal Poly is unable to meet their burden of demonstrating a clear overbalance on the side of non-disclosure and must provide the records I requested. Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarification about my request. I can be reached at (805) 458-0713. Thank you, Kathie Walker 17 San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128, 139 Cal.App.4th 1356: “[U]nless exempted, all public records may be examined by any member of the public, often the press, but conceivably any person with no greater interest than idle curiosity.” - 1 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Name Title Address San Luis Obispo, CA Email/Phone Attorney for Petitioner/Plaintiff, KATHIE WALKER SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO KATHIE WALKER, Petitioner/Plaintiff, vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, and JEFFREY ARMSTRONG, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN LUIS OBISPO Respondents/Defendants. Case No.: VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS [California Public Records Act, Gov. Code Section 7920.000, et. seq.] Petitioner and Plaintiff KATHIE WALKER (“Petitioner”), an individual, petitions the Court, through this Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint (“Petition”), to command Respondents and Defendants, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and JEFFREY ARMSTRONG, in his official capacity as the President of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (collectively “Respondents” or “Cal Poly”), to comply with the - 2 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), Government Code section 7920.000 et. seq.,1 and the California Constitution, Article I, section 3(b), to declare that Respondents have failed to do so; and to enjoin them from continuing to violate the law by withholding public records requested by Petitioner. INTRODUCTION 1. This Petition seeks to enforce the people’s fundamental right of access to public records, including, but not limited to, the public’s right to receive records promptly and without an agency delaying or obstructing the inspection or copying of public records. §§ 7922.500, 7922.530(a). 2. ‘Modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.), the CPRA was enacted for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to records in the possession of state and local agencies.’ Iloh v. Regents of University of California 87 Cal.App.5th 513, 523 (2023). 3. In enacting the statute in 1968, the Legislature declared this right of access to be ‘a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state’ (§ 7921.000)—a declaration ratified by voters who amended the California Constitution in 2004 to secure a ‘right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business’ (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(1), added by Prop. 59, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2004)).” National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward 9 Cal.5th 488, 492 (2020). 4. The Constitution requires that any “statute, court rule, or other authority . . . shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.” Id. § 3(b)(2). 1 Unless otherwise specified, all future statutory references in this Petition are to the California Government Code. - 3 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. Respondents are withholding public records in violation of the CPRA. Since October 2023, the Petitioner has submitted multiple narrow requests to Respondents for public records regarding the operations of fraternities at Cal Poly. To ensure the individual privacy rights of fraternity members, Plaintiff specifically excluded any personally identifiable information that directly relates to any particular student from each of her requests, such as names. Plaintiff’s request was limited to the addresses of Cal Poly’s fraternity houses, including satellite fraternity houses, and their fraternity affiliation; and addresses of “sanctioned events” held by fraternities from 7/1/2023 to 6/30/2024, which includes the academic year 2023-2024. 6. Respondents denied the Petitioner’s requests, claiming the records requested are exempt from disclosure and/or are “not public records”. 7. Despite Petitioner’s multiple requests, Respondents have repeatedly and unlawfully refused to disclose the requested records, making it necessary to file this action to enforce the public’s interest in disclosure of records documenting the operations of fraternities at a state university. Relief is required because, to date, Respondents have failed to meet their obligations under the CPRA. PARTIES 8. Petitioner is a member of the public under section 7920.515 and is beneficially interested in the outcome of these proceedings; Petitioner has a clear, present, and substantial right to the relief sought herein. 9. Respondent Board of Trustees of the California State University is a state agency under section 7920.540 that is in possession of public records subject to mandatory disclosure under the CPRA. - 4 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. Respondent Jeffrey Armstrong is the President of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo and is the public official who oversees the department that has denied Petitioner access to the requested records. In denying access to the records requested by Petitioner, Cal Poly’s representatives were acting on behalf of Armstrong, and Armstrong is the public official responsible for the denial of Petitioner’s requests and was acting at all relevant times for and on behalf of Cal Poly. He is sued in his official capacity. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. Under section 7923.000, “[a]ny person may institute a proceeding for injunctive or declarative relief, or for a writ of mandate . . . to enforce that person’s right under” the CPRA “to inspect or receive a copy of any public record or class of public records.” 12. According to section 7923.100, “Whenever it is made to appear, by verified petition to the superior court of the county where the records or some part thereof are situated, that certain public records are being improperly withheld from a member of the public, the court shall order the officer or other person charged with withholding the records to disclose those records or show cause why that person should not do so.” 13. The relief sought by the Petitioner is expressly authorized under sections 7923.000 and 7923.100, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1060 and 1085, et seq., and Article 1, section 3(b) and Article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution. 14. Venue is proper under Code of Civil Procedure sections 394 and 395 and Government Code section 7923.100. Petitioner is informed and believes that the records to which she seeks access are in San Luis Obispo County and that the acts and events giving rise to the claim occurred in San Luis Obispo County. STATEMENT OF FACTS - 5 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Cal Poly’s Fraternities 15. There are 19 recognized fraternities in the Interfraternity Council (“IFC”) at Cal Poly. One fraternity is suspended until Fall 2025; therefore 18 fraternities are currently in good standing. 16. Cal Poly provides funding for its fraternities including but not limited to staff members and a Greek Life office located on Cal Poly’s campus. 17. City of San Luis Obispo staff, through the course of their employment with the city, meet with members of Cal Poly’s sororities and fraternities and/or Cal Poly Greek Life staff throughout the academic year. 18. Cal Poly does not have a Greek Row, nor does it not provide fraternity housing to its fraternities, including main Chapter house facilities. Consequently, the burden for housing Cal Poly’s fraternities is shifted to off-campus locations in neighborhoods. 19. Most fraternities at Cal Poly occupy multiple fraternity houses, including their main Chapter house and “satellite” fraternity house(s) in San Luis Obispo, but do not own those homes. 20. Approximately 65 fraternity houses, including “satellite houses”, are documented Cal Poly fraternities in the IFC that host fraternity-related parties (“sanctioned events”) according to information available online including social media posts and /or a report filed by Cal Poly on October 1, 2023, as mandated by Assembly Bill 524: The Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act. (“AB 524”) Upon information and belief, apart from one fraternity that has a Chapter house in the county of San Luis Obispo at 740 W. Foothill, all other Cal Poly fraternities operate their main Chapter houses in the city of San Luis Obispo. 21. Upon information and belief, many complaints for noise to SLOPD during the academic years 2022 – 2024 were related to fraternity-related events (sanctioned events and/or - 6 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 parties) held at fraternity houses, including main Chapter houses and satellite fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo. 22. Upon information and belief, a large percentage of “unruly gathering” citations were issued by SLOPD to fraternity houses, including main Chapter houses and satellite houses, between 2022 and 2024. SLOMC § 9.13.030A, defines and unruly gathering as: “a gathering of twenty or more persons on private property that results in …“conduct that causes a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property in a significant segment of an immediate neighborhood, or presents a threat to the health and safety…” [which] shall include, but is not limited to, any or all of the following: a noise disturbance; obstruction of public streets or rights-of-way by people or vehicles; public drunkenness; unlawful possession of alcohol or drugs; serving alcohol to minors; fights; disturbances of the peace; urinating or defecating in public; setting off fireworks; vandalism; littering on public property or private property not belonging to the host of the gathering; presence of persons on rooftop areas not designed for occupancy; unpermitted live bands, amplified music or DJs; and throwing bottles or other objects or substances at law enforcement or any other person. conduct that causes a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property in a significant segment of an immediate neighborhood, or presents a threat to the health, welfare, and safety of those in attendance”. 23. Cal Poly student Carson Starkey died of acute alcohol poisoning at a satellite fraternity house on December 2, 2008, after fraternity-related hazing. According to court testimony, Starkey was among the pledges who were ordered by Sigma Alpha Epsilon leaders to drink large quantities of alcohol in a matter of minutes – some of whom were encouraged to vomit and keep drinking. Starkey’s blood-alcohol level was 0.44, or about five times the legal limit. 24. As a result of Starkey’s death, Cal Poly considered eliminating fraternities. Instead, Cal Poly President, Jeffrey Armstrong (“Armstrong”), implemented a deferred rush policy in 2010, whereby freshmen males at Cal Poly could not join fraternities until their second quarter in the winter instead of their first quarter in the fall. 25. Soon after the deferred recruitment policy was announced, representatives from the North American Interfraternity Conference (“NIC”), which represented 75 national fraternities, - 7 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 visited Cal Poly to meet with administrators and spurred a three-year campaign to restore recruitment of freshman fraternity members in the fall. 26. In 2013, Armstrong entered into an agreement called the Deferred Recruitment Compromise (“the Compromise”) with Cal Poly’s IFC President, United Sorority and Fraternity Council President, Panhellenic Council President, and Vice President for Student Affairs, Keith Humphrey. The Compromise set forth commitments for Cal Poly’s Greek Community and for Cal Poly’s Administration, including: • Fall 2013: Fraternities will have “More opportunities for students to visit Chapters and potentially receive a bid” to join a fraternity. “(Applicable to IFC only)” • Winter 2014: “Interim Policy regarding party registration (including satellite houses) and alcohol management” • Fall 2014: “Final policy regarding party registration” • Fall 2014: “Greek Row - Committed to begin early discussion regarding the feasibility of an on-campus Greek Row.” • Fall 2013: Cal Poly will “Eliminate deferred recruitment for all Chapters.” • Fall 2013: Cal Poly “Will work with the NIC to recruit more Chapters to campus (Applicable to IFC only)” • Fall 2014: Cal Poly “Will work with the Chancellor’s Office to explore Greek housing regulations.” A true and correct copy of the Deferred Recruitment Compromise is attached as Exhibit 1. 27. In Fall 2014, as mandated by the Compromise, Cal Poly implemented Party Registration Policy and Guidelines (“Cal Poly’s Policy”) for their sororities and fraternities, which require that fraternities host “parties” or sanctioned events at either (1) the Chapter facility, (2) a registered satellite house, or (3) a contracted third-party venue. A true and correct copy of the Party Registration Policy and Guidelines is attached as Exhibit 2. 28. A “satellite house” is defined by Cal Poly as “a house where a majority of occupants are fraternity members and/or anywhere the fraternity wants to host an official chapter event,” - 8 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 according to an email from Cal Poly’s Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life, Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola on October 26, 2023. A true and correct copy of the email is attached as Exhibit 3. 29. Cal Poly’s Policy, Article II (A) states “all off-campus parties must be held at either the chapter facility, registered satellite house, or a contracted third-party venue,” and defines “a satellite house” as “any residence where the majority of occupants are members of the chapter for the purpose of this policy.” 30. Cal Poly’s Policy, Article I state the following definition for “a party”: “A. In keeping with the Dean of Students Greek Life Alcohol and Drugs policy, one or more of the following points will define an alcohol-related event: i. The event occurs while at a chapter facility or satellite house, ii. During a fraternity or sorority event, iii. In any situation sponsored or endorsed by the chapter, iv. At any event an observer would associate with the fraternity or sorority.” 31. Parties held by fraternities must be registered pursuant to Cal Poly’s Policy, Article XI (H) which states: “Registration paperwork will include the following: i. Chapter(s) hosting ii. Date & Time iii. Location iv. Description & purpose of party v. Expected number of guests vi. Risk management policy vii. A copy of the liquor license and liability insurance for the 3rd party vendor, if hired to serve alcohol at the event. viii. Point of contact ix. Any required contracts x. Invited parties xi. Any advertisement that may be used” It is unclear whether “registration paperwork” refers to hard copies or if the information is submitted online, and/or where those records are located. - 9 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 32. AB 524 (Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (a)(7)), defines a “sanctioned event” as any event in which one of the following occurs: A. The institution deems the event to be sanctioned by a fraternity or sorority according to their campus policies and practices. B. The name of a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity or participating sorority or fraternity is used to market or publicize the event. C. The name of a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity or participating sorority or fraternity is displayed at the event. D. Official funds of a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity or participating sorority or fraternity are used for the purchase and reimbursement of food, beverages, supplies, venue-related costs, publicity, party rentals, damages or cleanup fees, or any other costs associated with the event. E. A campus-recognized sorority or fraternity or participating sorority or fraternity, or a benefactor officially affiliated with the sorority or fraternity, receives any portion of funds raised from attendance fees, ticket sales, or other forms of admission fees associated with the event. 33. Upon information and belief, Respondents have documentation for each main Chapter facility and each “registered satellite house” for its fraternities and sororities pursuant to Cal Poly’s Policy, including Article II (A) and Article XI (H). 34. Upon information and belief, sanctioned events at fraternity houses include, but are not limited to, parties hosting Cal Poly’s sororities because the Panhellenic Conference governing sororities prohibits parties with alcohol at sorority houses, rush recruitment, themed gatherings (TGs), live DJ events, beer die tournaments, and philanthropic events and/or fundraisers such as live music events that charge for admission. These fraternity-related parties (“sanctioned events”) can, and often do, include over a hundred people. They frequently occur in outdoor yards at fraternities, including satellite houses. 35. The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (“SLOMC”) and Zoning Regulations prohibit fraternity and sorority operations in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and require a conditional use permit for fraternity operations in R-3 and R-4 zones. San Luis Obispo defines a fraternity as a “Residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational association that is - 10 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 affiliated and in good standing with the California Polytechnic State University and where such an association also holds meetings or gatherings.” (SLOMC Ch. 17.156.014) 36. Cal Poly continues to recruit new fraternity Chapters to their campus without making provisions for legal locations for its fraternity houses. In 2016, an eight-year expansion plan was approved to invite four new IFC fraternity Chapters to Cal Poly. The plan was created by a committee including IFC members and Cal Poly staff such as the Dean of Students, the Assistant Director for Center of Leadership and Service, and the Fraternity and Sorority Life Coordinator. 37. The four new fraternities they recruited are Alpha Sigma Phi, Phi Gamma Delta, Phi Delta Theta and Pi Kappa Phi. None of the fraternity houses for these fraternities in the city of San Luis Obispo are in legally permitted locations. • Alpha Sigma Phi has its main Chapter house at 1218 & 1220 Bond Street, in an R-1 residential neighborhood. It also has a satellite house at 299 Albert Drive, in an R-1 residential neighborhood. Each of these locations has held sanctioned events and have received multiple noise complaints to SLOPD since the fraternity moved in. • Phi Gamma Delta has its main Chapter house at 1229 Fredericks Street, it an R-2 residential neighborhood. This location has hosted sanctioned events and has received multiple noise complaints to SLOPD since the fraternity moved in. • Phi Delta Theta has its main Chapter house at 260 Chaplin Lane, in an R-1 residential neighborhood. It also has satellite houses at 470 Grand Avenue, which is an R-1 residential neighborhood, and 568 Ellen Way, which is an R-2 residential neighborhood. Each of these locations has hosted sanctioned events and has received multiple noise complaints to SLOPD since the fraternity moved in. - 11 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • Pi Kappa Phi has its main fraternity house in the county of San Luis Obispo at 740 W. Foothill and is the only fraternity at Cal Poly located outside of the city limits of San Luis Obispo. Pi Kappa Phi has other satellite houses in R-1 residential neighborhoods in the city including 66 Rafael Way, which has held sanctioned events, and has received multiple noise complaints to SLOPD since the fraternity moved in. 38. Upon information and belief, there are over 50 fraternity houses including satellite houses for Cal Poly’s fraternities in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo that held sanctioned events in those neighborhoods between September 2022 and June 2024. 39. Upon information and belief, there are approximately 10 non-permitted fraternity houses, including satellite houses, for Cal Poly’s fraternities in R-3 and R-4 zones in San Luis Obispo that hosted sanctioned events in those neighborhoods between September 2022 and June 2024. 40. Upon information and belief, only six of Cal Poly’s 19 recognized fraternities in the IFC have permitted fraternity locations for their main Chapter house facility in San Luis Obispo. One of those 19 fraternities is working with the County to gain permits for a location at 740 W. Foothill, but the main Chapter houses for each of the remaining 12 fraternities are located within the city of San Luis Obispo. 41. Upon information and belief, the main Chapter houses for many of Cal Poly’s fraternities are considered “satellite houses” and are R-1 and R-2 in residential neighborhoods. 42. On or about October 25, 2023, Petitioner requested copies of the following public records pursuant to the CPRA: “a list of every satellite fraternity house, with their address and fraternity affiliation, from the time period of August 1, 2020, to the present.” A true and correct copy of the request is attached as Exhibit 4. - 12 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 43. On or about November 6, 2023, Records Access Officer, Maren Hufton, denied the Petitioner’s request on behalf of Respondents stating: “Cal Poly has conducted a reasonable search for these records under Government Code §7922.535 and has determined that the records you seek are exempt from production under the Public Records Act and will not be produced. Cal. Gov’t Code §§7922.000; 7927.705; 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.” The message from Ms. Hufton described the CPRA and stated, “The addresses of satellite fraternity houses (i.e. student residential addresses - which is considered student contact/directory information) and their fraternity affiliations do not contribute to the public's understanding of the university's business and therefore is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.” The message also cited exemptions under 34 CFR §99.3, U.S.C. § 1232g, The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, (“FERPA”), and did not describe the context in which FERPA applies to the records requested by Petitioner. The Petitioner did not request any personally identifiable information that directly relates to a particular student, or that would identify a specific student with reasonable certainty. The message also cited the “catch all” exemption §7922.000 but did not clearly demonstrate based on the facts of this particular case that the public interest in nondisclosure is outweighed by disclosure. Finally, the message directed the Petitioner to Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report, which included lists of sanctioned events for each fraternity and sorority during the 2022-2023 academic year, including the date, time and address location of each event, and stated: “The public interest in disclosure of the requested information is further reduced as there is already publicly available information about the location of the events and activities of Cal Poly recognized fraternities and sororities. In compliance with AB524 (Ed Code § 66310 et seq), Cal Poly has publicly posted its 2022-2023 Campus Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act Report at the below web address: https://greeklife.calpoly.edu/reports” A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit 5. - 13 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 44. On or about December 11, 2023, Petitioner messaged Respondents, and again sought records pursuant to the CPRA. Petitioner stated: “The exemptions you listed do not apply to the records I requested, as outlined below. I am, therefore, renewing my request that you provide to me a list of every Cal Poly satellite fraternity house, with their address and fraternity affiliation, from the period of August 1, 2020, to the present date.” The Petitioner submitted legislation and case law in support of her request for records, which she claimed were not subject to any exemptions under the CPRA. Petitioner also stated: “The fact that the addresses satellite fraternity houses are publicly available on Cal Poly’s website does not lessen Cal Poly’s obligation to provide a complete and current list of addresses for satellite fraternity houses according to my public records request. One major issue that is overlooked by Cal Poly is that the addresses of fraternities and sanctioned events that take place at those fraternities, including at satellite fraternity houses, are posted retrospectively for the previous academic year, in this case from August 2022 - June 2023. It is not a complete list to include the satellite fraternity houses in San Luis Obispo for this academic year.” “…. Meanwhile, in August 2023, multiple new satellite fraternity houses emerged in our lower-density (R-1 and R-2) residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo for this academic year of 2023-2024. They have their Greek letters posted on their property and/or fly their fraternity flags, and they host parties and other events. It seems evident that they are satellite fraternity houses but have just recently begun to operate as such, therefore they are not listed on Cal Poly’s AB 524 report posted online so there is no official recognition of their existence. Thus, I made a public records request to include the current list of satellite fraternity houses and their affiliations up until the present date. Regardless of my reasoning, one’s motivation to justify a public records request is not required. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128, 139 Cal.App.4th 1356: “[U]nless exempted, all public records may be examined by any member of the public, often the press, but conceivably any person with no greater interest than idle curiosity.” Based on the facts of this matter and case law, Cal Poly is unable to meet their burden of demonstrating a clear overbalance on the side of non-disclosure and must provide the records I requested. Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarification about my request.” A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit 6. - 14 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 45. On or before December 21, 2023, Records Access Officer, Maren Hufton, responded to Petitioner’s request on behalf of Respondents by claiming that the records sought are related to “independent organizations” and “are not public records” subject to the CPRA Act: “The addresses of “satellite fraternity houses” (i.e., student addresses) and their fraternity affiliations are not records regarding the conduct of the university’s business. These fraternities are independent organizations. To the extent that the university may have information concerning their addresses, disclosure of such records does not contribute to the public's understanding of the university's business and therefore these are not public records to be disclosed under the public records act.” The message stated further, even if the requested records were construed as public records, the records would be subject to a list of exemptions described in the abstract and did not indicate how they apply to the records requested by the Petitioner, below: • “Materials that reflect student education records or may violate student privacy. Cal. Govt. Code §§7927.705, 7922.000; 21 U.S.C. §1232g. • General Privacy Rights. Cal. Govt. Code §7927.705; Cal. Const. Art. 1, §1.2 • Records where the public interest against disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Cal. Govt. Code §7922.000.” The message also referenced the AB 524 Report, which included a list of all “Affiliated Chapter Houses” according to the definition of AB 524 and Calif. Ed. Code § 66312(a)(3). This definition is limited to residences on or off campus that are owned by the institution of higher education but occupied by a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity - of which there are none at Cal Poly - or any residences located on or off campus that are owned and occupied by the campus-recognized sorority or fraternity. Only seven fraternity Chapter houses were listed by Cal Poly in its AB 524 Report. A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit 7. B. Assembly Bill 524: The Campus-Recognized Sorority and Fraternity Transparency Act 46. In February 2021, AB 524 (Education Code § 66310 et seq) was introduced with the aim to increase transparency between campus-affiliated Greek organizations and the public. The legislation requires that all colleges and universities in California report various information - 15 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 regarding their sorority and fraternity organizations and members by posting the information “in a prominent location on the college’s Greek Life homepage on or before October 1, 2023, and annually thereafter.” The information is required to be archived and available to the public for a minimum of 10 years. 47. During the third reading of the Assembly Bill in the Senate on June 14, 2022, the Senate acknowledged the privacy laws under FERPA, and found that the disclosure of the location, date, and time of sanctioned events does not violate FERPA. On the passing of the Assembly Bill on August 15, 2022, it was specifically noted, "AB 524 will achieve transparency while respecting students' right to privacy as provided by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act by only providing non-identifiable information. These common-sense provisions strengthen public safety of higher education communities." AB 524 was approved unanimously by the California Senate and signed by the governor on Sept. 13, 2022. 48. AB 524 states “…each institution of higher education shall include in the institution’s requirements for campus recognition of each campus-recognized sorority or fraternity, both of the following requirements: (1) (A) A requirement that the campus-recognized sorority or fraternity shall submit to the institution on or before July 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, all of the following: … (x) The location, date, and time of any sanctioned event. (2) A requirement that any campus-recognized sorority or fraternity that does not comply with paragraph (1) be suspended from campus recognition.” Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A)(x)(2).” - 16 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 49. California State University (“CSU”) created a template for its school campus locations to prepare AB 524 reports to streamline the reporting process for compliance with the requirements of AB 524. A true and correct copy of the CSU Template is attached as Exhibit #8. 50. The template includes a section titled “Sanctioned Events Status” with subheadings that: “Includes any disciplinary actions” and “Meets Bill Requirements (x) & (3)(A,B)”. There are columns with titles for the following information to be filled in: • “Chapter (alpha order)” • “Date” • “Time” • “Event Name” • “Address (On and Off-campus)” (emphasis added) • “If disciplinary action occurred against the Chapter. Please indicate total number of disciplinary actions against the organization” 51. On or about October 1, 2023, Cal Poly published its AB 524 report on its Greek Life website. On the page titled “Sanctioned Events Status”, Cal Poly did not fill in the information directly on the template form but provided hyperlinks to corresponding spreadsheets for each sorority and fraternity. Each spreadsheet included the dates, times, and address locations of sanctioned events held by the Greek organizations for the previous academic year, September 2022 – June 2023. A true and correct copy of Cal Poly’s “Sanctioned Events Status” page for their AB 524 report is attached as Exhibit 9. 52. On or about November 8, 2024, the San Luis Obispo Community Development Department and Code Enforcement (“Code Enforcement”) became aware of Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report and the information related to the locations of sanctioned events held by Cal Poly’s sororities and fraternities. Many of the sanctioned events listed in Cal Poly’s AB 524 Report were at houses in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo, which is prohibited by the SLOMC and Zoning Regulations. - 17 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 53. Subsequently, the City of San Luis Obispo, including Code Enforcement Supervisor, John Mezzapesa and his staff, reached out to Cal Poly’s Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life, Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola, to discuss the SLOMC and Zoning Regulations related to the operations of Cal Poly’s sororities and fraternities. 54. Upon information and belief, Mr. Mezzapesa met with Cal Poly staff and members of Cal Poly’s fraternities and sororities to explain that the SLOMC and Zoning Regulations prohibit fraternity operations in R-1 and R-2 residential neighborhoods and that fraternities must obtain a conditional use permit for operations, which are only allowed in R-3 or R-4 zones. 55. Upon information and belief, in spring of 2024, Code Enforcement began sending Notices of Violation and Advisory Letters to properties for illegal fraternity operations, citing a violation of the SLOMC and Zoning Ordinance. Code Enforcement continued to investigate illegal fraternity operations and send additional Notices of Violation and/or Advisory Letters to properties with confirmed illegal fraternity operations and/or illegal fraternity events. 56. Upon information and belief, some property owners and property management companies contacted Code Enforcement and/or Cal Poly about the alleged fraternity operations after they received the Notices of Violation and/or Advisory Letters from the City of San Luis Obispo. Some property owners claimed they did not know that their property was considered a fraternity house and/or did not want their property to be associated as a fraternity house. 57. Upon information and belief, Cal Poly staff notified the City of San Luis Obispo staff, including Code Enforcement, that Cal Poly will no longer keep track of its satellite fraternity houses or share that information with the City. The main Chapter houses for many of Cal Poly’s fraternities are considered satellite fraternity houses because they are not permitted, even though they operate as - 18 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 full-fledged fraternity houses. Many satellite fraternities also host fraternity-related events and parties and operate as full-fledged fraternities. 58. On or about early July 2024, Cal Poly edited its AB 524 report, “Sanctioned Events Status” page, and removed the addresses of sanctioned events held by its sororities and fraternities under the “Address (On and Off-campus)” column. Cal Poly replaced the addresses of the events with “San Luis Obispo”. A true and correct copy of the before and after reports for three Cal Poly fraternities is attached as Exhibit #10. C. Petitioner Continued to Request Records Pursuant to the CPRA 59. On or about July 22, 2024, Petitioner requested copies of the following public records pursuant to the CPRA: “1. A list of every satellite fraternity house for Cal Poly's fraternities with their address and fraternity affiliation, from 8/1/2020 to the present date, 7/22/2024. 2. A list of sanctioned events held by each Cal Poly fraternity and sorority from 7/1/2023 to 7/1/2024, including the date, time, and address of each event, a description and purpose of the event, the expected number of guests, and risk management policy for each event. Cal Poly's Party Registration Policy and Guidelines ("Cal Poly's policy") for fraternities and sororities require "All off-campus parties must be held at either the chapter facility, registered satellite house, or a contracted third-party venue." It defines a satellite house as "any residence where a majority of occupants are members for the purpose of this policy." Cal Poly's policy also requires that fraternities and sororities register their parties with the Greek Life office for review by the Coordinators of Fraternity and Sorority Life. The information provided to Cal Poly by each fraternity and sorority includes the chapter(s) hosting the event, the date and time, the location, the description and purpose of the party, the expected number of guests, and the risk management policy, etc. I am not requesting any information identifying any particular student, such as a point of contact or invited parties.” A true and correct copy of the request is attached as Exhibit #11. 60. On or about August 1, 2024, Records Access Officer, Maren Hufton responded to Petitioner’s request on behalf of the Respondents by a written message that stated: - 19 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “As to Request #1, Cal Poly has reviewed your request for records under Government Code §7922.535 and has determined that the records you seek are not public records and therefore are not subject to the California Public Records Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §7920.530).” The message contained new information, not included in Respondents’ previous messages: “It should also be noted that Cal Poly does not possess a “list of satellite fraternity house addresses” and it is not obligated to create such a document to respond to a public records request.” . . . “Furthermore, Cal Poly no longer recognizes fraternity or sorority “satellite houses”, therefore such information is no longer collected by the University.” 61. Contained in the same written message on or about August 1, 2024, related to Petitioner’s Request #2, Respondents stated that “no single existing record or file meets the criteria of your request” but that some of the requested information “may be able to be extracted” for which Petitioner must bear the full cost, and it would be calculated based on the programmer’s hourly rate including benefits. Respondents continued to claim the same exemptions in previous messages without any context about how they relate to Petitioner’s request. The exemptions were listed as follows: • “Materials that reflect student education records or may violate student privacy. Cal. Govt. Code §§7927.705, 7922.000; 21 U.S.C. §1232g. • General Privacy Rights. Cal. Govt. Code §7927.705; Cal. Const. Art. 1, §1.2 • Records where the public interest against disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Cal. Govt. Code §7922.000.” Respondents suggested that Petitioner wait until Cal Poly publishes their AB 524 Report on October 1, 2024, which would contain “some of the information” requested but noted “that the location of a sanctioned event must be held at a chapter house or at a 3rd party venue.” This seemed to indicate Cal Poly’s Policy Article II (A) was altered to remove “registered satellite houses”. It’s unclear whether Cal Poly would include sanctioned events at satellite houses that were had been registered with Cal Poly’s Greek Life office and held during the 2023 – 2024 academic year in its AB 524 Report to be filed on or before October 1, 2024. A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit #12. - 20 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 62. During an amendment of AB 524 in the Senate on May 23, 2022, the wording of Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A) changed from requiring that the institution collect from the sorority or fraternity to requiring that the sorority or fraternity submit to the institution the information described under Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A) on or before July 1, 2023 and annually thereafter. Failure to do so requires that the sorority or fraternity be suspended from campus recognition. Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(2). Based on the requirement that each sorority and fraternity at Cal Poly submit to Cal Poly, the date, time and location of any sanctioned event held during the previous academic year (August 2023 – June 2024) on or before July 1, 2024, the Respondents should be in possession of the information requested by Petitioner in the form of a list or documentation provided by its fraternities pursuant to Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A). 63. On or about August 1, 2024, Petitioner requested copies of the following public records pursuant to the CPRA: “a list of sanctioned events held by each Cal Poly fraternity in the Interfraternity Council from 7/1/2023 to 6/30/2024, including the date, time, and address of each event.” Petitioner cited the requirement outlined in Cal. Ed. Code § 66312 (b)(1)(A). that mandates each fraternity submit the information to Cal Poly on or before July 1, 2024, by uploading a list or a spreadsheet of the sanctioned events. Therefore, the information could easily be provided to the Petitioner in a timely manner without any specialized research. Petitioner noted, “The academic year is starting soon, and time is of the essence. If Cal Poly refuses to provide the information I have requested, I will have no choice but to seek relief from the Court to compel disclosure, including attorney fees and costs.” A true and correct copy of the request is attached as Exhibit #13. 64. On or about August 12, 2024, Records Access Officer, Maren Hufton responded to Petitioner’s request on behalf of the Respondents by a written message that stated Cal Poly “has determined that your request, either in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records”. - 21 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The message contends that fraternities do not provide the university with a comprehensive list of their sanctioned events, that the events are reported when they register for events individually through Cal Poly’s “event registration system”. “It is from this system/database that the reportable sanctioned event information is extracted for the annual AB 524 Report.” The message stated that the process to extract and redact those records would take time but did not provide an estimated date or time frame. Furthermore, Respondents indicated “most of the records will be subject to exemptions…” and included a list of exemptions, as follows: • “Materials that reflect student education records or may violate student privacy. Cal. Govt. Code §§7927.705, 7922.000; 21 U.S.C. §1232g. • General Privacy Rights. Cal. Govt. Code §7927.705; Cal. Const. Art. 1, §1. • Records where the public interest against disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Cal. Govt. Code §7922.000.” The message made clear that Respondents would not release the addresses in the records sought by Petitioner. A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit #14. 65. It has been over 11 months since Petitioner first requested records pursuant to the CPRA, and Respondents have continued to refuse to produce that the addresses of Cal Poly’s satellite fraternity houses, including main Chapter houses not owned by the fraternity corporation, and the addresses where fraternities have held sanctioned events. Respondents have violated the CPRA by wrongfully refusing to produce the requested records. SUMMARY OF LEGAL AUTHORITY 66. The California Constitution and CPRA require state and local agencies to make any public record available for inspection or copying upon request unless the record falls within a specific exemption from disclosure. Cal. Const., art. I § 3(b)(1), (b)(7); §§ 7922.000, 7922.525, 7922.530. - 22 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 67. “‘Public records’ includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” § 7920.530(a). 68. “Nothing in” the CPRA “shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records,” and an agency “shall make the records promptly available.” §§ 7922.500, 7922.530(a). 69. The CPRA provides that when it is shown that public records are being improperly withheld, “the court shall order the officer or other person charged with withholding the records to disclose those records or show cause why that person should not do so.” § 7923.100. 70. According to the CPRA, “If the court finds that the public official’s decision to refuse disclosure is not justified . . . the court shall order the public official to make the record public.” § 7923.110(a). 71. There is no exemption generally applicable to the records requested by Petitioner, and Respondents have no right to continue withholding them. 72. The CPRA further imposes on local agencies a “duty to assist” any member of public who makes a records request, such that an agency “shall do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances”: 1) Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated. 2) Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist. 3) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought. § 7922.600(a). 73. Respondents did not assist Petitioner “to identify records and information that are responsive to the request,” “describe the information technology and physical location in which the - 23 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 record exists” or provide “suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.” See § 7922.600(a). 74. Petitioner has performed all conditions preceding the filing of this action and exhausted all remedies to obtain access to the public records requested from Respondents. 75. Petitioner seeks attorney fees and court costs as required by the CPRA. See § 7923.115(a). 76. Respondents’ violations of law set forth above will continue unless and until they are commanded by this Court to produce the public records requested and to not engage in such further violations of law by a declaratory judgment finding their conduct unlawful. Additionally, absent injunctive relief, Respondents will continue to withhold public information as they have done here, resulting in great injury to Petitioner and the public at large by depriving them of immediate access to information vital to the public interest. 77. Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law because the relief she seeks does not consist of monetary compensation but rather the enforcement of her statutory and constitutional rights of access, and the harm she has suffered through Respondents’ refusal to provide access to information that is required to be disclosed under California law cannot be compensated through an award of monetary damages. CAUSE OF ACTION For Violations of the California Public Records Act and Article I, § 3 of the California Constitution (Against All Respondents) 78. Petitioner realleges and incorporates by this reference Paragraphs 1 through 77 above as though set forth herein in full. 79. Petitioner’s requests describe public records as defined by the CPRA. - 24 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 80. Respondents violated and continue to violate the CPRA and Article I, Section 3(b) of the California Constitution by improperly withholding records responsive to those requests for 11 months and counting. 81. Respondents have failed to and continue to fail to demonstrate that the public records requested by Petitioner qualify for any exemption from disclosure or any authorized delay in disclosure. 82. Respondents have repeatedly violated and continue to violate the CPRA’s mandate that agencies “shall make [public] records promptly available,” § 7922.530(a), and that agencies may not “delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records,” § 7922.500. 83. Respondents failed to assist Petitioner “to identify records and information that are responsive to the request,” “describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist,” and/or to provide “suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.” § 7922.600(a). 84. An actual controversy exists as to whether the public records requested by Petitioner must be immediately disclosed. 85. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to obtain the public records she has requested, other than this Petition. Petitioner is entitled to institute proceedings for a writ of mandate and for declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce her rights and the public’s rights to obtain records responsive to Petitioner’s requests. Furthermore, Petitioner is entitled to have the proceedings resolved on an expedited basis consistent “with the object of securing a decision to these matters at the earliest possible time.” § 7923.005. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Petitioner prays as follows: - 25 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. For a writ of mandate and injunction ordering Respondents to provide all records responsive to Petitioner’s CPRA requests as set forth above; 2. Alternatively, if the Court does not immediately order production of the records requested, that it order Respondents to show cause why the records should not be released and to prepare a log of withheld records, and that it thereafter issue a writ of mandate and injunction ordering the requested records to be disclosed; 3. For an order granting declaratory and injunctive relief, including, but not limited to: a) Declaring that the withheld materials are public records as defined by section 7920.530, subdivision (a) in that they contain information relating to the conduct of the people’s business, prepared, owned, used, or retained by Respondents and are subject to disclosure; b) Declaring that Respondents violated the CPRA by denying the public records request and failing to promptly make the requested records available to Petitioner and the public, and; c) Declaring that Respondents violated the CPRA by failing to state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available within 10 days of receiving the requests; d) Declaring that Respondents violated the CPRA by failing to assist Petitioner (1) to identify records and information that are responsive to the request, (2) by describing the information technology and physical location in which the records exist, and/or (3) by providing suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought; e) Enjoining Respondents to provide the requested records; - 26 - VEERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. For a finding and determination that Petitioner is the prevailing party in this action; 5. For an award of attorney fees and costs to Petitioner pursuant to section 7923.115, subdivision (a) or any other applicable law; 6. For judgment accordingly; and 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: 371 From:Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 2, 2025 4:38 PM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Cc:Emily Ewer Subject:RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Afternoon, Timmi! My clients won’t be back from summer break/work obligations until mid-September, and their desire is to have a “full press court” at the hearing. I know that they would appreciate the accommodation. Feels like a long way off, especially since we just started summer! Quick thought…staff did an excellent job on their reports recommending amendments to the various fraternity’s CUPs, which apparently is how this has been handled in the very recent past. If the PC didn’t feel like they could make the appropriate findings for the amendments, how will they be able to make the same findings for a “new” CUP? Just asking… RE: Parker – I’ve expressed my sentiments below, so I am hopeful that the representations made by the former CBO will be honored. I’ll will admit that I am more than a little concerned for our clients. As always, C.M. Florence, AICP Principal Planner OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805.541.4509 I D: 805.548.1561 I M: 805.459.9972 www.oasisassoc.com From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 3:32 PM To: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Hi Carol, thank you. I do have to ask, now that you are involved, if September 2 is still off the table (I imagine it still is, but please confirm). I have not heard anything about other fraternities appealing their respective revocations. Regarding Parker, I have an internal meeting set up to discuss next steps and then we will let you know where we have landed. Thanks, Timmi 372 From: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:01 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Good afternoon! Appreciate your response, Timmi, and the extension of time to submit additional information. If it helps, the clients are fine with a Council hearing after September 2nd. In addition, can you advise me whether appeals were also lodged by Sigma Nu and/or Delta Upsilon? On an unrelated note, can we discuss 2146 Parker Street/ARCH-0809-2024, please. I have recently been made aware that Mike Loew is no longer with the city, which concerns me, as he had been coordinating with Building and SLOFD staff on a few of the incomplete comments, in addition to championing the change from the previously lodged Moderate Development to a Minor Use Permit. I am hopeful that he shared his thoughts with you, as we had been waiting for a resolution from him. For your information, we received a follow up email from Walter in June that the application would be classified as “inactive” on August 4, 2025. Since we started discussing the project with you originally, I am hopeful that you can assist us. Thanks, in advance, for the consideration and response. As always, C.M. Florence, AICP Principal Planner OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805.541.4509 I D: 805.548.1561 I M: 805.459.9972 www.oasisassoc.com From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 11:42 AM To: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Hi Carol, Thank you for the email. I will extend the time for submittal of information for consideration in a staff report to July 11. We are very challenged with finding an alternative time for the Council meeting, I do not yet have a date if the fraternity cannot do September 2. As soon as I have a tentative date I will let you know, Thank you, Timmi From: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 12:06 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> 373 Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Importance: High Good Morning, Community Development Director Tway! We have very recently been retained by Delta Chi to assist them with their appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke their conditional use permit. Based upon your recent email – June 24, 2025 to the current president, Chris Green, we are respectfully requesting additional time to prepare a more robust response to the details behind the appeal request. With that said, we assume that the City Council hearing would also be delayed to, perhaps, a later date in September. We will be coordinating with our clients this week and hope to have a date certain to submit the additional information. Will advise you, accordingly. Please contact us should you have any questions and/or if you have additional information to share. Thank you, as always, for your time, consideration, and accommodation. As always, C.M. Florence, AICP Principal Planner OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805.541.4509 I D: 805.548.1561 I M: 805.459.9972 www.oasisassoc.com 374 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Wednesday, July 2, 2025 3:32 PM To:Carol Florence Cc:Emily Ewer Subject:RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Hi Carol, thank you. I do have to ask, now that you are involved, if September 2 is still off the table (I imagine it still is, but please confirm). I have not heard anything about other fraternities appealing their respective revocations. Regarding Parker, I have an internal meeting set up to discuss next steps and then we will let you know where we have landed. Thanks, Timmi From: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:01 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Good afternoon! Appreciate your response, Timmi, and the extension of time to submit additional information. If it helps, the clients are fine with a Council hearing after September 2nd. In addition, can you advise me whether appeals were also lodged by Sigma Nu and/or Delta Upsilon? On an unrelated note, can we discuss 2146 Parker Street/ARCH-0809-2024, please. I have recently been made aware that Mike Loew is no longer with the city, which concerns me, as he had been coordinating with Building and SLOFD staff on a few of the incomplete comments, in addition to championing the change from the previously lodged Moderate Development to a Minor Use Permit. I am hopeful that he shared his thoughts with you, as we had been waiting for a resolution from him. For your information, we received a follow up email from Walter in June that the application would be classified as “inactive” on August 4, 2025. Since we started discussing the project with you originally, I am hopeful that you can assist us. Thanks, in advance, for the consideration and response. As always, C.M. Florence, AICP Principal Planner OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805.541.4509 I D: 805.548.1561 I M: 805.459.9972 www.oasisassoc.com 375 From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 11:42 AM To: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Hi Carol, Thank you for the email. I will extend the time for submittal of information for consideration in a staff report to July 11. We are very challenged with finding an alternative time for the Council meeting, I do not yet have a date if the fraternity cannot do September 2. As soon as I have a tentative date I will let you know, Thank you, Timmi From: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 12:06 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Importance: High Good Morning, Community Development Director Tway! We have very recently been retained by Delta Chi to assist them with their appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke their conditional use permit. Based upon your recent email – June 24, 2025 to the current president, Chris Green, we are respectfully requesting additional time to prepare a more robust response to the details behind the appeal request. With that said, we assume that the City Council hearing would also be delayed to, perhaps, a later date in September. We will be coordinating with our clients this week and hope to have a date certain to submit the additional information. Will advise you, accordingly. Please contact us should you have any questions and/or if you have additional information to share. Thank you, as always, for your time, consideration, and accommodation. As always, C.M. Florence, AICP Principal Planner OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805.541.4509 I D: 805.548.1561 I M: 805.459.9972 www.oasisassoc.com 376 From:Greek Life <greeklife@calpoly.edu> Sent:Wednesday, July 2, 2025 1:45 PM To:Petersen, Cecilia Subject:Re: Fraternity and Sorority Fire Inspections Good afternoon, Our apologies, below are the additional contacts requested: Alpha Epsilon Pi - aepi.presidentcalpoly@gmail.com Alpha Sigma Phi - president.cpalphasig@gmail.com Delta Sigma Phi - president.cpdeltachi@gmail.com Phi Delta Theta - phideltcalpolypres@gmail.com Pi Kappa Phi - archon.calpoly.pikappaphi@gmail.com Phi Sigma Kappa - pskslo.president@gmail.com Sigma Phi Epsilon - president.calpolysigep@gmail.com Sigma Pi - etadeltasage@gmail.com Theta Chi - president.cpthetachi@gmail.com Zeta Beta Tau - president@zbtcalpoly.org Best, FSL Staff From: Petersen, Cecilia <CPeterse@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 at 2:22 PM To: Greek Life <greeklife@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Fraternity and Sorority Fire Inspections Hi, Thank you for sending that information over. We have the below fraternities/sororities on our list if you could please provide the additional contact information that would be very helpful! Alpha Epsilon Pi Alpha Sigma Pi Delta Sigma Pi Pi Delta Theta Pi Kappa Phi Phi Sigma Kappa Sigma Phi Epsilon Sigma Pi Theta Chi Zeta Beta Tau Thank you, Cecilia Petersen Fire Inspector I 377 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Fire Department E CPeterse@slocity.org T 805.783.7773 C 805.550.9633 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Greek Life <greeklife@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:09 PM To: Petersen, Cecilia <CPeterse@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Fraternity and Sorority Fire Inspections Here is the contact list requested! Please let us know if you need anything else from us. Best, Alpha Chi Omega axo.president.cp@gmail.com Alpha Omicron Pi aoii.president.chipsi@gmail.com Alpha Phi sloaphipres@gmail.com Chi Omega chiopres.cp@gmail.com Delta Gamma dg.president.calpoly@gmail.com Gamma Phi Beta gphibpresident@gmail.com Kappa Alpha Theta cpthetapresident@gmail.com Kappa Kappa Gamma kkg.president.calpoly@gmail.com Sigma Kappa sigmakappaslo@gmail.com Beta Theta Pi cpbeta.president@gmail.com Delta Upsilon ducalpolypresident@gmail.com Lambda Chi Alpha slolca.alpha@gmail.com Pi Kappa Phi archon.calpoly.pikappaphi@gmail.com Sigma Nu Cpsnupresident@gmail.com From: Petersen, Cecilia <CPeterse@slocity.org> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 at 12:49 PM To: Greek Life <greeklife@calpoly.edu> Subject: Fraternity and Sorority Fire Inspections Good afternoon, I hope this message finds you well. It's time to begin scheduling the annual fire and life safety inspections for each of the fraternity and sorority houses. To start coordinating inspection times, could you please forward me a current list of contacts for each house? Thank you in advance for your assistance. 378 Cecilia Petersen Fire Inspector I The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Fire Department E CPeterse@slocity.org T 805.783.7773 C 805.550.9633 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 379 From:Matthew < Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 6:41 PM To:Patino, Mallory Subject:Re: Special Event Notification - Lambda Chi Alpha, 10/29/2025 Hi Mallory, Thank you for the response. We’re aware of the outstanding invoice and are working on getting it resolved. In the meantime, we’d like to get started on the event application process so we don't fall behind any deadlines, if that’s allowed. Please let me know if we can begin preparing or submitting materials while we work on settling the fees. I'll be on the lookout for your follow-up with more details. Best, Matthew On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 9:57 AM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Matthew, Thank you for reaching out. You will need to submit an application for the event review, but I will follow up with a more detailed response on that process and associated fees in the next week. However, in beginning looking into your request, I was notified of your outstanding invoice. The Community Development Department is still waiting on completion fees from your organization from the processing of your original use permit application (USE-0331-2023). I have attached a copy of the invoice here for your reference (Invoice # 00037373). I believe you’ve coordinated with Hannah Hanh about these fees most recently. You will need to pay the completion fees before we are able to process or review a request for a special event. Let me know if you have any questions. I’ll be in touch soon. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 380 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Matthew < Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:25 PM To: Planning <planning@slocity.org> Cc: Subject: Special Event Notification - Lambda Chi Alpha, 10/29/2025 Dear San Luis Obispo Planning Committee, My name is Matthew Gnos, and I am a representative of the Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity, located at 1264 East Foothill Blvd. We are planning to host a haunted house fundraiser at our chapter house, 1264 East Foothill Blvd, on 10/29/2025 from 8 pm to 11 pm. We expect more than 48 attendees and are therefore submitting this notice per our Conditional Use Permit. We will be preparing a written notice for neighbors within 300 feet, and we are committed to complying with all relevant conditions, including the requirement for a Transportation Management Plan. To ensure we meet the city’s expectations, would you be able to provide us with a draft or template of an acceptable Transportation Management Plan for an event of this nature? We would appreciate any guidance or examples you can share. I have also CC’d Blake Brennan, our Vice President, who is leading the planning for this event. Please let us know if you require any additional documentation or clarification. We look forward to your review and approval. Best, Matthew Gnos LCA Risk Manager 381 From:Wallace, Christine Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 3:42 PM To:Hayley Townley Subject:Re: Noise No-Warning List Nope! Just for property managers. 뇤뇱뇲뇳뇴뇵뇶 On Jul 1, 2025, at 3:09 PM, Hayley Townley < wrote: Hiya! Sure do hope that email wasn’t for the fraternity! Steven Sheats said one more and they go in front of the planning commission again. Congrats on another year :-) Begin forwarded message: From: <noreply@slocity.org> Subject: Noise No-Warning List Date: July 1, 2025 at 2:36:07 PM PDT To: < cwallace@slocity.org 382 From:Patino, Mallory Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 3:43 PM To:Terry Reeves Cc:Juan Fernandez; John Hatfield; Wade Spriggs Subject:RE: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Attachments:Conditional Use Permit.pdf Hi Terry, My apologies on the delay in reaching out to you! I was actually just working on this draft to reach out to you when I got your email. Last week on June 25, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution revoking the Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity (Delta Upsilon) at 720 Foothill. We are processing the final resolution, and I will send on a copy once signed. There will be no changes to the content from the draft version that was published with the agenda. This resolution (decision) may be appealed to the City Council. To appeal, you must complete and file the Appeal to the City Council form with the City Clerk’s Office within 10 calendar days of this rendered decision (by end of business day, Monday July 7, since day 10 is on a weekend). The required filing fee ($2,662.26) must accompany the appeal form. You can pay the appeal fee at the Finance Counter, which is temporarily located at 919 Palm Street, in person from Monday-Thursday, 8am-4pm. If you need to pay over the phone, you can let me know and I’ll coordinate phone payment. Information about the appeal procedures is on the City's Website here (refer to the ‘Appeal to the City Council’ section). If you would like to pursue applying for a new Conditional Use Permit, I have attached here the application checklist of items required to apply (note: physical copies of plans are no longer required). You can apply via email by submitting the application materials to planning@slocity.org. Upon submittal of an application, Planning staff would set up an application and send you an invoice for the required application filing fee ($11,260.55). The invoice would be sent with instructions on how to pay online. If you preferred to apply and pay in person, let me know and I can provide details for days and times when our Planning counter is open to the public. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 3:41 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> 383 Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. The outcome was totally expected, but disappointing all the same. Can you help us understand our appeal options? Thanks. On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 5:20 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry, The Planning Commission Staff Report and associated attachments are now published and accessible online. You can download the pdfs here: https://pub-slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=0d341b53-47b3-4741-9491- b900ccf4c5d9&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English. I will be out of the office the rest of this week, but be back working on Monday afternoon. If you have any questions you’d like answers on before next week, please reach out to Rachel Cohen at rcohen@slocity.org. Otherwise, let me know if you have any questions or concerns before Wednesday morning. If you have a presentation you’d like to present, please send it to me before 3pm on Wednesday. You may submit agenda correspondence up until 3pm on Wednesday, see the City’s website for how to comment here: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory- bodies/agendas-and-minutes/planning-commission. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:26 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill 384 Hi Mallory. Thank you for the chat as well. It's fine to list me as the representative. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 3:16 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry and Juan, Thanks for the chat earlier today. I wanted to let you know I found the Draft Resolutions that are going on consent to Planning Commission tomorrow night for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s revocations. You can access the drafts by clicking the paper clip icons on the item here: https://pub-slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=711b6ba9- e00c-4566-ab59-02a00d530d05&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=10&Tab=attachments . The language for my draft resolution will be similar to these, and if edits are made tomorrow night, my draft will likely reflect the final adopted Resolutions. One question regarding your review (USE-0334-2025), and sorry if you answered this already and I missed it – Would you like me to list Terry Reeves (Alumni Corporation President) as the representative on the agenda staff report? Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:10 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves 385 < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill That would be perfect- thanks! Thanks, /juan On Jun 5, 2025, at 14:08, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, We prefer to use our City Teams meetings. I can send you the link shortly. Would you like me to invite everyone who is on this email thread? Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:06 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves 386 < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Invite sent for Tuesday at 11am. Do you prefer to send a SLO City Zoom or shall I set it up? Thanks, /juan On Jun 5, 2025, at 13:58, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, I am available for a call or video meeting next Tuesday from 8:30am-2pm, or Wednesday from 8:30am-1 pm. Let me know if there is a time during those windows that would work for you. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006 .png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 1:56 PM 387 To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory- Thank you for your proactive note with links. Can we schedule a debrief with you for early next week to discuss our June 25 CUP? I’ve viewed some of the video of the May 28 hearing and it would be good to get your input as we prepare our presentation to the Planning Commission. Can you please suggest a few times next week that we can meet? /juan On Jun 3, 2025, at 16:29, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John and Wade, I wanted to touch base on a few things regarding the upcoming USE- 0334-2025 Planning Commission (PC) hearing. 1. As the applicant, you will be allowed to speak for 10 minutes during the PC meeting on 6/25. Please let me now if you would like to utilize this speaking window, and if yes, who the speaker will be. 388 2. Who would you like me to list as the applicant representative? Previous fraternities have generally listed the sitting chapter president, but it’s up to you if you would like an alumni member, or if you’d like multiple names included. 3. The PC hearings for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s CUP re-reviews were held on 5/28. Though staff presented a recommendation to modify the CUP with revised conditions of approval, the Commission decided to revoke both fraternity’s use permits. The Resolution will not be adopted until the 6/11 PC meeting since staff did not prepare a draft Resolution for revocation ahead of the PC meeting. a. Based on this outcome straying from the other two more recent reviews (from late 2024), I will not be making a recommendation on behalf of staff for modification or revocation of the CUP for your re-review. I am still drafting the staff report, but it will present the project facts and list the alternatives PC may choose, which are 1. Modification of use permit with updated conditions of approval, 2. Revocation of use permit, or 3. Continuance of review to future PC meeting date. I will have two draft Resolutions ready as attachments to my staff report, one for modification and one for revocation, in hopes that, based on their decision, PC will be able to adopt the Resolution the same night of the hearing. b. If you interested in reviewing the 5/28 PC meeting, the agenda, staff report, and minutes (no resolution yet though) can be found in these archives:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.asp x?id=26297&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk. c. You can watch the entirety of the 5/28 PC meeting here:https://www.youtube.com/live/avwDfoK3syU?si=0H Uh_66DQiJAKQpp. From around 7 minutes to 1 hour, 45 minutes relates to the fraternity CUP re-reviews. If you have any questions about the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting, or your upcoming hearing, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.pn g><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 389 From: John Hatfield < Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 9:24 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Wade Spriggs < Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill +Terry Reeves, incoming Alumni Corporation President Mallory, appreciate you sending this all over. It is very helpful. We were all finally able to line up our schedules and 6/25 works best for us. If we can put that date on the books, we'd appreciate it. Looking forward to being in SLO next month. Thank you, John Hatfield On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 10:31 AM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Wade, My apologies for the delay in following up after our meeting. I set up the application for the re-review of your existing Conditional Use Permit to have a fraternity house at 720 Foothill (new application number: USE-0334-2025). I have attached here a copy of your current use permit, which will be modified/updated through this re-review process. As I mentioned I would provide, below are links to two different fraternity use permit reviews that were recently processed. 390  Alpha Epsilon Pi, re-review of existing use permit o Staff Report for Planning Commission (PC) Meeting, agenda item 4a for re-review of existing use permit: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.as px?id=201304&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk o PC Resolution, approval of modifications to existing use permit:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.as px?id=202053&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk  Lambda Chi Alpha, review of new use permit o Staff Report for PC Meeting, agenda item 4a for new use permit application:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse. aspx?id=194681&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk o PC Resolution, approval of use permit: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.as px?id=195337&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk o Staff Report for City Council (CC) Meeting, agenda item 6b for appeal of PC use permit approval: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=200405&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk o CC Resolution, upholding PC approval of use permit:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.as px?id=200865&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk o Appellant presentation available in the CC 10-15-24 agenda folder: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/browse.aspx ?id=200395&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk The updates we will be recommending to the Planning Commission will be very similar to what was approved for AEPi and Lambda. I am moving forward with re-reviewing two other fraternity use permits at the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting. We discussed the possibility of reviewing your use permit at the same time as the others on 5/28, or by itself at the 6/11 Planning Commission meeting. If neither of those options work, 6/25 would be the next available date. Please let me know which review date would be best for you. If you would like to make it on the 5/28 meeting agenda, I would need to know asap. I will have a draft of the staff report and proposed resolution available for your review at least one week ahead of whichever date we schedule for the PC meeting. I may be in touch in the next few weeks if I have any questions while working on the staff report and resolution recommendation. Let me know if you have any questions for me! 391 Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.p ng><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -- John Hatfield ( -- Terry -- Terry Community Development Department 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California (805) 781-7170 Completed Planning Application Form: Applications can be obtained from the Community Development Department or by mail, fax, or at: www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development Applications for development permits must include, at minimum, the information in this checklist in order to be accepted for processing and evaluation for final action. Additional information may be required following initial review by staff. Applications missing information in this checklist will not be accepted for review. Description of the proposed use: Please provide a detailed description of the proposed use including: the type of proposed activities, hours of operation, goods and services offered, number of employees, number of parking spaces dedicated to the business and any other information related to the use. For residential construction, state if the addition is for a bedroom, additional unit or other use, number of off-street parking spaces and any other related information. Title Page. Including the zoning and current uses of the site, total square footage, the area of the site to be covered by structures, density calculations, parking calculations and total area of landscaping excluding setback areas and the total number of new and existing dwelling units listed by number of bedrooms. A site plan. At a minimum include: building footprints, existing and proposed impervious surfaces, existing and proposed drainage patterns, dimensioned property lines and all building setbacks; location, name and width of adjacent rights-of-way; location and width of all waterways; proposed improvements and demolitions; dimensions of all parking spaces and bays; walls, fences and exterior lights; location of recycling and refuse enclosures; landscaping and outdoor use areas, distance to nearest structure on adjacent property, north arrow and scale. Application Checklist Effective: 7-01-2023 Conditional Use Permit Application Fee: Refer to current Comprehensive Fee Schedule Project Plans, at appropriate scale, using U.S. Customary or English Units •12 copies at full size (Min. 11” x 17”) •1 copy at reduced size (8.5” x 11”) Schematic floor plans. Include interior building layouts, existing and proposed rooms or use areas, square footages of bedrooms, entrances and emergency exits, relationship to exterior use areas. Fire hydrants. Indicate the location and distance to the two (2) closest fire hydrants on the site plan. Fire sprinkler information. Show the location of the backflow prevention device on the site plan. Show the proposed location of the fire sprinkler water lateral on the site plan. Show the location of the fire sprinkler riser and the fire department connection on the schematic floor plan. 392 From:Terry Reeves < Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 3:41 PM To:Patino, Mallory Cc:Juan Fernandez; John Hatfield; Wade Spriggs Subject:Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. The outcome was totally expected, but disappointing all the same. Can you help us understand our appeal options? Thanks. On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 5:20 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry, The Planning Commission Staff Report and associated attachments are now published and accessible online. You can download the pdfs here: https://pub-slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=0d341b53-47b3-4741-9491- b900ccf4c5d9&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English. I will be out of the office the rest of this week, but be back working on Monday afternoon. If you have any questions you’d like answers on before next week, please reach out to Rachel Cohen at rcohen@slocity.org. Otherwise, let me know if you have any questions or concerns before Wednesday morning. If you have a presentation you’d like to present, please send it to me before 3pm on Wednesday. You may submit agenda correspondence up until 3pm on Wednesday, see the City’s website for how to comment here: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory- bodies/agendas-and-minutes/planning-commission. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Terry Reeves < Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:26 PM 393 To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Juan Fernandez < ; John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory. Thank you for the chat as well. It's fine to list me as the representative. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 3:16 PM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Terry and Juan, Thanks for the chat earlier today. I wanted to let you know I found the Draft Resolutions that are going on consent to Planning Commission tomorrow night for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s revocations. You can access the drafts by clicking the paper clip icons on the item here: https://pub-slocity.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=711b6ba9- e00c-4566-ab59-02a00d530d05&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=10&Tab=attachments . The language for my draft resolution will be similar to these, and if edits are made tomorrow night, my draft will likely reflect the final adopted Resolutions. One question regarding your review (USE-0334-2025), and sorry if you answered this already and I missed it – Would you like me to list Terry Reeves (Alumni Corporation President) as the representative on the agenda staff report? Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org 394 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez < Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:10 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill That would be perfect- thanks! Thanks, /juan On Jun 5, 2025, at 14:08, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, We prefer to use our City Teams meetings. I can send you the link shortly. Would you like me to invite everyone who is on this email thread? Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org 395 <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez <jjfernan@mac.com> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 2:06 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Invite sent for Tuesday at 11am. Do you prefer to send a SLO City Zoom or shall I set it up? Thanks, /juan On Jun 5, 2025, at 13:58, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Juan, I am available for a call or video meeting next Tuesday from 8:30am-2pm, or Wednesday from 8:30am-1 pm. Let me know if there is a time during those windows that would work for you. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org 396 slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006 .png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Juan Fernandez <jjfernan@mac.com> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 1:56 PM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: John Hatfield < ; Wade Spriggs < ; Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill Hi Mallory- Thank you for your proactive note with links. Can we schedule a debrief with you for early next week to discuss our June 25 CUP? I’ve viewed some of the video of the May 28 hearing and it would be good to get your input as we prepare our presentation to the Planning Commission. Can you please suggest a few times next week that we can meet? /juan On Jun 3, 2025, at 16:29, Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi John and Wade, I wanted to touch base on a few things regarding the upcoming USE- 0334-2025 Planning Commission (PC) hearing. 397 1. As the applicant, you will be allowed to speak for 10 minutes during the PC meeting on 6/25. Please let me now if you would like to utilize this speaking window, and if yes, who the speaker will be. 2. Who would you like me to list as the applicant representative? Previous fraternities have generally listed the sitting chapter president, but it’s up to you if you would like an alumni member, or if you’d like multiple names included. 3. The PC hearings for Delta Chi and Sigma Nu’s CUP re-reviews were held on 5/28. Though staff presented a recommendation to modify the CUP with revised conditions of approval, the Commission decided to revoke both fraternity’s use permits. The Resolution will not be adopted until the 6/11 PC meeting since staff did not prepare a draft Resolution for revocation ahead of the PC meeting. a. Based on this outcome straying from the other two more recent reviews (from late 2024), I will not be making a recommendation on behalf of staff for modification or revocation of the CUP for your re-review. I am still drafting the staff report, but it will present the project facts and list the alternatives PC may choose, which are 1. Modification of use permit with updated conditions of approval, 2. Revocation of use permit, or 3. Continuance of review to future PC meeting date. I will have two draft Resolutions ready as attachments to my staff report, one for modification and one for revocation, in hopes that, based on their decision, PC will be able to adopt the Resolution the same night of the hearing. b. If you interested in reviewing the 5/28 PC meeting, the agenda, staff report, and minutes (no resolution yet though) can be found in these archives:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.asp x?id=26297&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk. c. You can watch the entirety of the 5/28 PC meeting here:https://www.youtube.com/live/avwDfoK3syU?si=0H Uh_66DQiJAKQpp. From around 7 minutes to 1 hour, 45 minutes relates to the fraternity CUP re-reviews. If you have any questions about the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting, or your upcoming hearing, please let me know. Best, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org 398 slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.pn g><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: John Hatfield < Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 9:24 AM To: Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> Cc: Wade Spriggs < Terry Reeves < Subject: Re: USE-0334-2025 - Re-review and updates of Use Permit U 36-09, at 720 Foothill +Terry Reeves, incoming Alumni Corporation President Mallory, appreciate you sending this all over. It is very helpful. We were all finally able to line up our schedules and 6/25 works best for us. If we can put that date on the books, we'd appreciate it. Looking forward to being in SLO next month. Thank you, John Hatfield On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 10:31 AM Patino, Mallory <mpatino@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Wade, My apologies for the delay in following up after our meeting. I set up the application for the re-review of your existing Conditional Use Permit to have a fraternity house at 720 Foothill (new application number: USE-0334-2025). I have attached here a copy of your current use permit, which will be modified/updated through this re-review process. 399 As I mentioned I would provide, below are links to two different fraternity use permit reviews that were recently processed.  Alpha Epsilon Pi, re-review of existing use permit o Staff Report for Planning Commission (PC) Meeting, agenda item 4a for re-review of existing use permit: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.as px?id=201304&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk o PC Resolution, approval of modifications to existing use permit:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.as px?id=202053&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk  Lambda Chi Alpha, review of new use permit o Staff Report for PC Meeting, agenda item 4a for new use permit application:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse. aspx?id=194681&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk o PC Resolution, approval of use permit: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.as px?id=195337&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk o Staff Report for City Council (CC) Meeting, agenda item 6b for appeal of PC use permit approval: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=200405&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk o CC Resolution, upholding PC approval of use permit:https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.as px?id=200865&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk o Appellant presentation available in the CC 10-15-24 agenda folder: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/browse.aspx ?id=200395&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk The updates we will be recommending to the Planning Commission will be very similar to what was approved for AEPi and Lambda. I am moving forward with re-reviewing two other fraternity use permits at the 5/28 Planning Commission meeting. We discussed the possibility of reviewing your use permit at the same time as the others on 5/28, or by itself at the 6/11 Planning Commission meeting. If neither of those options work, 6/25 would be the next available date. Please let me know which review date would be best for you. If you would like to make it on the 5/28 meeting agenda, I would need to know asap. I will have a draft of the staff report and proposed resolution available for your review at least one week ahead of whichever date we schedule for the PC meeting. I may be in touch in the next few weeks if I have any questions while working on the staff report and resolution recommendation. 400 Let me know if you have any questions for me! Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png><image005.p ng><image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -- John Hatfield ( -- Terry -- Terry 401 From:Hayley Townley < Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 3:09 PM To:Wallace, Christine Subject:Fwd: Noise No-Warning List Hiya! Sure do hope that email wasn’t for the fraternity! Steven Sheats said one more and they go in front of the planning commission again. Congrats on another year :-) Begin forwarded message: From: <noreply@slocity.org> Subject: Noise No-Warning List Date: July 1, 2025 at 2:36:07 PM PDT To: < cwallace@slocity.org 402 From:Petersen, Cecilia Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 2:22 PM To:Greek Life Subject:Re: Fraternity and Sorority Fire Inspections Hi, Thank you for sending that information over. We have the below fraternities/sororities on our list if you could please provide the additional contact information that would be very helpful! Alpha Epsilon Pi Alpha Sigma Pi Delta Sigma Pi Pi Delta Theta Pi Kappa Phi Phi Sigma Kappa Sigma Phi Epsilon Sigma Pi Theta Chi Zeta Beta Tau Thank you, Cecilia Petersen Fire Inspector I Fire Department E CPeterse@slocity.org T 805.783.7773 C 805.550.9633 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Greek Life <greeklife@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:09 PM To: Petersen, Cecilia <CPeterse@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Fraternity and Sorority Fire Inspections Here is the contact list requested! Please let us know if you need anything else from us. Best, Alpha Chi Omega axo.president.cp@gmail.com Alpha Omicron Pi aoii.president.chipsi@gmail.com Alpha Phi sloaphipres@gmail.com 403 Chi Omega chiopres.cp@gmail.com Delta Gamma dg.president.calpoly@gmail.com Gamma Phi Beta gphibpresident@gmail.com Kappa Alpha Theta cpthetapresident@gmail.com Kappa Kappa Gamma kkg.president.calpoly@gmail.com Sigma Kappa sigmakappaslo@gmail.com Beta Theta Pi cpbeta.president@gmail.com Delta Upsilon ducalpolypresident@gmail.com Lambda Chi Alpha slolca.alpha@gmail.com Pi Kappa Phi archon.calpoly.pikappaphi@gmail.com Sigma Nu Cpsnupresident@gmail.com From: Petersen, Cecilia <CPeterse@slocity.org> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 at 12:49 PM To: Greek Life <greeklife@calpoly.edu> Subject: Fraternity and Sorority Fire Inspections Good afternoon, I hope this message finds you well. It's time to begin scheduling the annual fire and life safety inspections for each of the fraternity and sorority houses. To start coordinating inspection times, could you please forward me a current list of contacts for each house? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Cecilia Petersen Fire Inspector I The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Fire Department E CPeterse@slocity.org T 805.783.7773 C 805.550.9633 slocity.org The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… The linked ima ge cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 404 From:Patino, Mallory Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:34 PM To:Symens, Sadie Subject:6/11 PC Resolutions Attachments:PC Resolution No PC-1102-2025 (1236 Monte Vista) USE-0332-2025.pdf; PC Resolution No PC-1103-2025 (1304 Foothill) USE-0333-2025.pdf Hi Sadie, Rachel said you asked for copies of the signed 6/11 PC Resolutions. They are attached here. Let me know if you need anything else. Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications RESOLUTION NO. PC- 1102-2025 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REVOKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY AT 1236 MONTE VISTA PLACE. THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. WHEREAS, on August 12, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo revised a Use Permit to allow a fraternity (Kappa Sigma) at 1236 Monte Vista Place (Resolution No. 5230-98 (1998 Series)); and WHEREAS, after Kappa Sigma vacated the project site, Delta Chi began residing at the project site in 2012 and continued the use as a fraternity organization under the provisions of Use Permit U106-98; and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2021, a Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation was issued to the property due to unpermitted work to enclose upper story balconies to convert non-habitable space into sleeping areas. Building permits to convert the spaces back into decks were submitted in October 2022 and December 2023, but the work has not been completed; and WHEREAS, the City received complaints, and, between September 2024 and May 2025, the Police Department issued three citations relating to noise violations at the property (one was successfully appealed) and one citation for an unruly gathering; and WHEREAS, Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation on March 19, 2025, relating to the multiple, verified violations of the existing Use Permit; and WHEREAS, in order to grant a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find, among other things, that the establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use (SLOMC 17.110.070(A)(5)); and WHEREAS, revocation of an existing Conditional Use Permit is appropriate if the Planning Commission cannot make one or more findings of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.110 upon review of the permit due to violations thereof (SLOMC 17.102.020); and WHEREAS, Condition No. 11 of Use Permit U106-98 requires Planning Commission re-review if complaints are received by the City, at which time the Planning Commission could add, delete, or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit; and Resolution No. PC-1102-2025 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on May 28, 2025, for the re-review of the Conditional Use Permit and to consider the continuation of the fraternity at 1236 Monte Vista, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-0333-2025, Sigma Nu, applicant; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was provided at the time and in the manner required by, including publication on May 15, 2025, in the New Times newspaper of a legal ad for the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo considered all evidence, including testimony of the applicant, public comment, and recommendations by staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (two members absent) to revoke the Conditional Use Permit and directed their legal counsel to prepare a Resolution of revocation for the Commission’s adoption at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Recitals stated above are incorporated herein as Findings of the Planning Commission. In revoking the Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Municipal Code §17.102.020(C)(7), and without prejudice, the Planning Commission additionally finds: 1. The current use is not consistent with Fraternity regulations of Municipal Code Section 17.86.130 because: a. The fraternity has been repeatedly cited for violations of the City’s Noise Ordinance and unruly gatherings. b. Since May 2024, ten (10) complaints have been made to the Police for noise violations at the property, resulting in several citations. One of these occurred after the property was served with a Notice of Violation of the Conditional Use Permit on March 19, 2025. c. The fraternity was cited by Police on March 15, 2025, for the “St. Fratty’s Day” party hosted on the property, during a safety enhancement zone and despite City staff’s proactive outreach to fraternity organizations ahead of the St. Patrick’s Day Weekend to encourage safe celebrations and deter unruly gatherings. d. The fraternity was most recently cited for a noise violation on May 17, 2025, after the fraternity was provided notice of the Planning Commission hearing on re-review of the Conditional Use Permit. Resolution No. PC-1102-2025 Page 3 e. The maximum number of persons on site repeatedly exceeded the limit established by the Conditional Use Permit. f. The fraternity has failed to apply for special event permits or parking and transportation plans as required by their Conditional Use Permit, despite hosting events which exceeded the routine gathering capacity limits of the Permit. g. There have been a series of events detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. h. There has been an institutional failure within the fraternity to educate its members about the existence and requirements of the Conditional Use Permit. 2. For the reasons stated above, the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the current use is not compatible with residential uses in the vicinity. The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code §17.110.070(A)(3) cannot be made. 3. For the reasons stated above, the continued use of the property as a fraternity under the Conditional Use Permit is not appropriate for the subject location, is incompatible with the neighborhood, and will be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code § 17.110.070(A)(5) cannot be made. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit may have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.) SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby REVOKES the Conditional Use Permit U106-98, previously issued as to 1236 Monte Vista Place for use as a fraternity, based on the Findings stated above. Use as a fraternity shall cease immediately upon execution of this Resolution. Any subsequent application to establish a subsequent Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity at the location shall be subject to all requirements of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to Section 17.86.130 and Chapter 17.110. Resolution No. PC-1102-2025 Page 4 SECTION 4. Appeal. This Resolution of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by filing an appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of date of this decision as stated below and in compliance with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.126. The appellant must pay the appropriate appeal fee, if applicable. On motion by Commissioner Munoz-Morris, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Munoz-Morris, Flores, Kahn, Vice Chair Tolle, and Chair Houghton NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner Cooley The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11th day of June 2025. ___________________ Rachel Cohen, Secretary Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. PC-1103-2025 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REVOKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY AT 1304 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND 190 CRANDALL WAY. THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. WHEREAS, on May 14, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo revised a Use Permit to allow a fraternity at 1304 Foothill Boulevard (Resolution No. 5017-90 (1990 Series)); and WHEREAS, on May 8, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed a previously approved Use Permit allowing a fraternity at 1304 Foothill Boulevard, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under U1484; Sigma Nu, applicant (Resolution No. 5055-91 ((1991 Series)); and WHEREAS, on October 14, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo re-reviewed a previously approved and amended Use Permit allowing a fraternity at 1304 Foothill Boulevard, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under U1484; Sigma Nu, applicant (Resolution No. 5111-92 ((1992 Series)); and WHEREAS, between September 2024 and May 2025, the City received complaints regarding conduct at 1304 Boulevard, and the Police Department issued four citations relating to noise violations and an unruly gathering at the property; and WHEREAS, Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation on January 8, 2025, and an Administrative Citation on April 2, 2025, relating to the multiple, verified violations of the existing Use Permit; and WHEREAS, in order to grant a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find, among other things, that the establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use (SLOMC 17.110.070(A)(5)); and WHEREAS, revocation of an existing Conditional Use Permit is appropriate if the Planning Commission cannot make one or more findings of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.110 upon review of the permit due to violations thereof (SLOMC 17.102.020); and WHEREAS, Condition No. 4 of Use Permit requires that the Planning Commission review complaints received by the City and consider whether to add, delete, or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit; and Resolution No. PC-1103-2025 Page 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to Condition No. 4 of the Use Permit, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on May 28, 2025, for the re-review of the Conditional Use Permit and to consider the continuation of the fraternity use at 1304 Foothill Boulevard and 190 Crandall Way, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE- 0333-2025; Sigma Nu, applicant; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was provided at the time and in the manner required by, including publication on May 15, 2025, in the New Times newspaper of a legal ad for the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo considered all evidence, including, testimony of the applicant, public comment, and recommendations by staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (two members absent) to revoke the Conditional Use Permit and directed their legal counsel to prepare a Resolution of revocation for the Commission’s adoption at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Recitals stated above are incorporated herein as Findings of the Planning Commission. In revoking the Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Municipal Code §17.102.020(C)(7), and without prejudice, the Planning Commission additionally finds: 1. The current use is not consistent with Fraternity regulations of Municipal Code Section 17.86.130 because: a. The fraternity has been repeatedly cited for violations of the City’s Noise Ordinance and unruly gatherings. b. The maximum number of persons on site repeatedly exceeded the limit established by the Conditional Use Permit. c. Since May 2024, nine (9) complaints have been made to the Police for noise violations at 1304 Foothill Blvd, resulting in several citations. A citation issued on November 1, 2024, documented 300 people in attendance at the property. d. At least three citations for noise violations have been issued to the property since issuance of the Notice of Violation of the Conditional Use Permit in January 2025. e. The fraternity has failed to apply for special event permits or parking and transportation plans as required by their Conditional Use Permit, despite Resolution No. PC-1103-2025 Page 3 hosting events which exceeded the routine gathering capacity limits of the Permit. f. There has been a series of events detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. g. There has been an institutional failure within the fraternity to educate its members about the existence and requirements of the Conditional Use Permit. 2. For the reasons stated above, the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the current use is not compatible with residential uses in the vicinity. The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code §17.110.070(A)(3) cannot be made. 3. For the reasons stated above, the continued use of the property as a fraternity under the Conditional Use Permit is not appropriate for the subject location, is incompatible with the neighborhood, and will be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code § 17.110.070(A)(5) cannot be made. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit may have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.). SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby REVOKES the Conditional Use Permit U1484, previously issued as to 1304 Foothill Boulevard for use as a fraternity, based on the Findings stated above. Use as a fraternity shall cease immediately upon execution of this Resolution. Any subsequent application to establish a subsequent Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity at the location shall be subject to all requirements of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to Section 17.86.130 and Chapter 17.110. Resolution No. PC-1103-2025 Page 4 SECTION 4. Appeal. This Resolution of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by filing an appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of date of this decision as stated below and in compliance with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.126. The appellant must pay the appropriate appeal fee, if applicable. On motion by Commissioner Munoz-Morris, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Munoz-Morris, Flores, Kahn, Vice Chair Tolle, and Chair Houghton NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner Cooley The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11th day of June 2025. ___________________ Rachel Cohen, Secretary Planning Commission 405 From:Patino, Mallory Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:35 PM To:Webb, Donré Subject:6/11 PC Resolutions Attachments:PC Resolution No PC-1103-2025 (1304 Foothill) USE-0333-2025.pdf; PC Resolution No PC-1102-2025 (1236 Monte Vista) USE-0332-2025.pdf Hi Donré, Rachel said to send you the attached Resolutions from the 6/11 PC meeting to add to Laserfiche. Let me know if you need anything else from me! Thanks, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications RESOLUTION NO. PC- 1102-2025 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REVOKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY AT 1236 MONTE VISTA PLACE. THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. WHEREAS, on August 12, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo revised a Use Permit to allow a fraternity (Kappa Sigma) at 1236 Monte Vista Place (Resolution No. 5230-98 (1998 Series)); and WHEREAS, after Kappa Sigma vacated the project site, Delta Chi began residing at the project site in 2012 and continued the use as a fraternity organization under the provisions of Use Permit U106-98; and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2021, a Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation was issued to the property due to unpermitted work to enclose upper story balconies to convert non-habitable space into sleeping areas. Building permits to convert the spaces back into decks were submitted in October 2022 and December 2023, but the work has not been completed; and WHEREAS, the City received complaints, and, between September 2024 and May 2025, the Police Department issued three citations relating to noise violations at the property (one was successfully appealed) and one citation for an unruly gathering; and WHEREAS, Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation on March 19, 2025, relating to the multiple, verified violations of the existing Use Permit; and WHEREAS, in order to grant a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find, among other things, that the establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use (SLOMC 17.110.070(A)(5)); and WHEREAS, revocation of an existing Conditional Use Permit is appropriate if the Planning Commission cannot make one or more findings of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.110 upon review of the permit due to violations thereof (SLOMC 17.102.020); and WHEREAS, Condition No. 11 of Use Permit U106-98 requires Planning Commission re-review if complaints are received by the City, at which time the Planning Commission could add, delete, or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit; and Resolution No. PC-1102-2025 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on May 28, 2025, for the re-review of the Conditional Use Permit and to consider the continuation of the fraternity at 1236 Monte Vista, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-0333-2025, Sigma Nu, applicant; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was provided at the time and in the manner required by, including publication on May 15, 2025, in the New Times newspaper of a legal ad for the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo considered all evidence, including testimony of the applicant, public comment, and recommendations by staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (two members absent) to revoke the Conditional Use Permit and directed their legal counsel to prepare a Resolution of revocation for the Commission’s adoption at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Recitals stated above are incorporated herein as Findings of the Planning Commission. In revoking the Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Municipal Code §17.102.020(C)(7), and without prejudice, the Planning Commission additionally finds: 1. The current use is not consistent with Fraternity regulations of Municipal Code Section 17.86.130 because: a. The fraternity has been repeatedly cited for violations of the City’s Noise Ordinance and unruly gatherings. b. Since May 2024, ten (10) complaints have been made to the Police for noise violations at the property, resulting in several citations. One of these occurred after the property was served with a Notice of Violation of the Conditional Use Permit on March 19, 2025. c. The fraternity was cited by Police on March 15, 2025, for the “St. Fratty’s Day” party hosted on the property, during a safety enhancement zone and despite City staff’s proactive outreach to fraternity organizations ahead of the St. Patrick’s Day Weekend to encourage safe celebrations and deter unruly gatherings. d. The fraternity was most recently cited for a noise violation on May 17, 2025, after the fraternity was provided notice of the Planning Commission hearing on re-review of the Conditional Use Permit. Resolution No. PC-1102-2025 Page 3 e. The maximum number of persons on site repeatedly exceeded the limit established by the Conditional Use Permit. f. The fraternity has failed to apply for special event permits or parking and transportation plans as required by their Conditional Use Permit, despite hosting events which exceeded the routine gathering capacity limits of the Permit. g. There have been a series of events detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. h. There has been an institutional failure within the fraternity to educate its members about the existence and requirements of the Conditional Use Permit. 2. For the reasons stated above, the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the current use is not compatible with residential uses in the vicinity. The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code §17.110.070(A)(3) cannot be made. 3. For the reasons stated above, the continued use of the property as a fraternity under the Conditional Use Permit is not appropriate for the subject location, is incompatible with the neighborhood, and will be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code § 17.110.070(A)(5) cannot be made. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit may have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.) SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby REVOKES the Conditional Use Permit U106-98, previously issued as to 1236 Monte Vista Place for use as a fraternity, based on the Findings stated above. Use as a fraternity shall cease immediately upon execution of this Resolution. Any subsequent application to establish a subsequent Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity at the location shall be subject to all requirements of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to Section 17.86.130 and Chapter 17.110. Resolution No. PC-1102-2025 Page 4 SECTION 4. Appeal. This Resolution of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by filing an appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of date of this decision as stated below and in compliance with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.126. The appellant must pay the appropriate appeal fee, if applicable. On motion by Commissioner Munoz-Morris, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Munoz-Morris, Flores, Kahn, Vice Chair Tolle, and Chair Houghton NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner Cooley The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11th day of June 2025. ___________________ Rachel Cohen, Secretary Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. PC-1103-2025 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REVOKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY AT 1304 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND 190 CRANDALL WAY. THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. WHEREAS, on May 14, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo revised a Use Permit to allow a fraternity at 1304 Foothill Boulevard (Resolution No. 5017-90 (1990 Series)); and WHEREAS, on May 8, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed a previously approved Use Permit allowing a fraternity at 1304 Foothill Boulevard, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under U1484; Sigma Nu, applicant (Resolution No. 5055-91 ((1991 Series)); and WHEREAS, on October 14, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo re-reviewed a previously approved and amended Use Permit allowing a fraternity at 1304 Foothill Boulevard, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under U1484; Sigma Nu, applicant (Resolution No. 5111-92 ((1992 Series)); and WHEREAS, between September 2024 and May 2025, the City received complaints regarding conduct at 1304 Boulevard, and the Police Department issued four citations relating to noise violations and an unruly gathering at the property; and WHEREAS, Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation on January 8, 2025, and an Administrative Citation on April 2, 2025, relating to the multiple, verified violations of the existing Use Permit; and WHEREAS, in order to grant a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find, among other things, that the establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use (SLOMC 17.110.070(A)(5)); and WHEREAS, revocation of an existing Conditional Use Permit is appropriate if the Planning Commission cannot make one or more findings of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.110 upon review of the permit due to violations thereof (SLOMC 17.102.020); and WHEREAS, Condition No. 4 of Use Permit requires that the Planning Commission review complaints received by the City and consider whether to add, delete, or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit; and Resolution No. PC-1103-2025 Page 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to Condition No. 4 of the Use Permit, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on May 28, 2025, for the re-review of the Conditional Use Permit and to consider the continuation of the fraternity use at 1304 Foothill Boulevard and 190 Crandall Way, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE- 0333-2025; Sigma Nu, applicant; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was provided at the time and in the manner required by, including publication on May 15, 2025, in the New Times newspaper of a legal ad for the public hearing; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo considered all evidence, including, testimony of the applicant, public comment, and recommendations by staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (two members absent) to revoke the Conditional Use Permit and directed their legal counsel to prepare a Resolution of revocation for the Commission’s adoption at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Recitals stated above are incorporated herein as Findings of the Planning Commission. In revoking the Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Municipal Code §17.102.020(C)(7), and without prejudice, the Planning Commission additionally finds: 1. The current use is not consistent with Fraternity regulations of Municipal Code Section 17.86.130 because: a. The fraternity has been repeatedly cited for violations of the City’s Noise Ordinance and unruly gatherings. b. The maximum number of persons on site repeatedly exceeded the limit established by the Conditional Use Permit. c. Since May 2024, nine (9) complaints have been made to the Police for noise violations at 1304 Foothill Blvd, resulting in several citations. A citation issued on November 1, 2024, documented 300 people in attendance at the property. d. At least three citations for noise violations have been issued to the property since issuance of the Notice of Violation of the Conditional Use Permit in January 2025. e. The fraternity has failed to apply for special event permits or parking and transportation plans as required by their Conditional Use Permit, despite Resolution No. PC-1103-2025 Page 3 hosting events which exceeded the routine gathering capacity limits of the Permit. f. There has been a series of events detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. g. There has been an institutional failure within the fraternity to educate its members about the existence and requirements of the Conditional Use Permit. 2. For the reasons stated above, the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the current use is not compatible with residential uses in the vicinity. The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code §17.110.070(A)(3) cannot be made. 3. For the reasons stated above, the continued use of the property as a fraternity under the Conditional Use Permit is not appropriate for the subject location, is incompatible with the neighborhood, and will be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code § 17.110.070(A)(5) cannot be made. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit may have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.). SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby REVOKES the Conditional Use Permit U1484, previously issued as to 1304 Foothill Boulevard for use as a fraternity, based on the Findings stated above. Use as a fraternity shall cease immediately upon execution of this Resolution. Any subsequent application to establish a subsequent Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity at the location shall be subject to all requirements of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to Section 17.86.130 and Chapter 17.110. Resolution No. PC-1103-2025 Page 4 SECTION 4. Appeal. This Resolution of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by filing an appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of date of this decision as stated below and in compliance with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.126. The appellant must pay the appropriate appeal fee, if applicable. On motion by Commissioner Munoz-Morris, seconded by Commissioner Flores, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Munoz-Morris, Flores, Kahn, Vice Chair Tolle, and Chair Houghton NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner Cooley The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11th day of June 2025. ___________________ Rachel Cohen, Secretary Planning Commission 406 From:Greek Life <greeklife@calpoly.edu> Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:09 PM To:Petersen, Cecilia Subject:Re: Fraternity and Sorority Fire Inspections Here is the contact list requested! Please let us know if you need anything else from us. Best, Alpha Chi Omega axo.president.cp@gmail.com Alpha Omicron Pi aoii.president.chipsi@gmail.com Alpha Phi sloaphipres@gmail.com Chi Omega chiopres.cp@gmail.com Delta Gamma dg.president.calpoly@gmail.com Gamma Phi Beta gphibpresident@gmail.com Kappa Alpha Theta cpthetapresident@gmail.com Kappa Kappa Gamma kkg.president.calpoly@gmail.com Sigma Kappa sigmakappaslo@gmail.com Beta Theta Pi cpbeta.president@gmail.com Delta Upsilon ducalpolypresident@gmail.com Lambda Chi Alpha slolca.alpha@gmail.com Pi Kappa Phi archon.calpoly.pikappaphi@gmail.com Sigma Nu Cpsnupresident@gmail.com From: Petersen, Cecilia <CPeterse@slocity.org> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 at 12:49 PM To: Greek Life <greeklife@calpoly.edu> Subject: Fraternity and Sorority Fire Inspections Good afternoon, I hope this message finds you well. It's time to begin scheduling the annual fire and life safety inspections for each of the fraternity and sorority houses. To start coordinating inspection times, could you please forward me a current list of contacts for each house? Thank you in advance for your assistance. Cecilia Petersen Fire Inspector I The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Fire Department E CPeterse@slocity.org 407 T 805.783.7773 C 805.550.9633 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 408 From:Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 1:01 PM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Cc:Emily Ewer Subject:RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Good afternoon! Appreciate your response, Timmi, and the extension of time to submit additional information. If it helps, the clients are fine with a Council hearing after September 2nd. In addition, can you advise me whether appeals were also lodged by Sigma Nu and/or Delta Upsilon? On an unrelated note, can we discuss 2146 Parker Street/ARCH-0809-2024, please. I have recently been made aware that Mike Loew is no longer with the city, which concerns me, as he had been coordinating with Building and SLOFD staff on a few of the incomplete comments, in addition to championing the change from the previously lodged Moderate Development to a Minor Use Permit. I am hopeful that he shared his thoughts with you, as we had been waiting for a resolution from him. For your information, we received a follow up email from Walter in June that the application would be classified as “inactive” on August 4, 2025. Since we started discussing the project with you originally, I am hopeful that you can assist us. Thanks, in advance, for the consideration and response. As always, C.M. Florence, AICP Principal Planner OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805.541.4509 I D: 805.548.1561 I M: 805.459.9972 www.oasisassoc.com From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 11:42 AM To: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Hi Carol, Thank you for the email. I will extend the time for submittal of information for consideration in a staff report to July 11. We are very challenged with finding an alternative time for the Council meeting, I do not yet have a date if the fraternity cannot do September 2. As soon as I have a tentative date I will let you know, Thank you, Timmi 409 From: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 12:06 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Importance: High Good Morning, Community Development Director Tway! We have very recently been retained by Delta Chi to assist them with their appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke their conditional use permit. Based upon your recent email – June 24, 2025 to the current president, Chris Green, we are respectfully requesting additional time to prepare a more robust response to the details behind the appeal request. With that said, we assume that the City Council hearing would also be delayed to, perhaps, a later date in September. We will be coordinating with our clients this week and hope to have a date certain to submit the additional information. Will advise you, accordingly. Please contact us should you have any questions and/or if you have additional information to share. Thank you, as always, for your time, consideration, and accommodation. As always, C.M. Florence, AICP Principal Planner OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805.541.4509 I D: 805.548.1561 I M: 805.459.9972 www.oasisassoc.com 410 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 12:07 PM To:Boswell, Mike Subject:RE: Meeting to discuss a couple of issues Yes, will send invite, Thanks! Timmi From: Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 12:06 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Meeting to discuss a couple of issues Can we push to 10:30 or 11? I'm trying to schedule with Whitney as well (on a separate matter) and she's available that morning. If that is OK, can you send a calendar invite? Thanks. Mike Mike Boswell Council Member Office of the City Council E MBoswell@slocity.org C 805.748.8178 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 10:56 AM To: Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Meeting to discuss a couple of issues Great – meet you at 919 Palm on Thursday at 10, Thanks! Timmi From: Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 10:50 AM 411 To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Meeting to discuss a couple of issues Timmi: July 3 at 10am works for me. I'll see you then. Thanks. Mike Mike Boswell Council Member Office of the City Council E MBoswell@slocity.org C 805.748.8178 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 10:47 AM To: Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Meeting to discuss a couple of issues Hi Mike, Happy to meet. I could meet tomorrow at 3, if that works, or I have more availability on July 3 at 10 or 11 or on Monday at 1 pm. Please let me know if any of those times work for you. If not we can look further into the week. Thanks, Timmi From: Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 10:37 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Meeting to discuss a couple of issues Timmi: I'd like to meet with you very soon to discuss a few issues. I had planned to wait for the upcoming study session to discuss fraternity issues, but with the Grand Jury report coming out, I don't want to wait. I'd also like to learn a little more about the Libertine issue. What is your preference for scheduling? I usually just ask Dillon to set up meetings. I do have time tomorrow if you have any open slots. 412 Mike Mike Boswell Council Member Office of the City Council E MBoswell@slocity.org C 805.748.8178 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 413 From:McDonald, Whitney Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 11:47 AM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:RE: Timmi Meeting with Mike Boswell on July 3 Thanks for letting me know! From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 11:00 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Timmi Meeting with Mike Boswell on July 3 Hi Scott and Whitney, I just wanted to let you know that Councilmember Boswell reached out to me this morning asking to meet to discuss a few issues including enforcement of fraternities and the recent Libertine issue that I emailed about. I will be meeting with him on Thursday morning at 10 am – I will let you know how it goes, 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 414 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 11:42 AM To:Carol Florence Cc:Emily Ewer Subject:RE: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Hi Carol, Thank you for the email. I will extend the time for submittal of information for consideration in a staff report to July 11. We are very challenged with finding an alternative time for the Council meeting, I do not yet have a date if the fraternity cannot do September 2. As soon as I have a tentative date I will let you know, Thank you, Timmi From: Carol Florence <cmf@oasisassoc.com> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 12:06 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Emily Ewer <Emily@oasisassoc.com> Subject: Delta Chi - PC Appeal to CC Importance: High Good Morning, Community Development Director Tway! We have very recently been retained by Delta Chi to assist them with their appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke their conditional use permit. Based upon your recent email – June 24, 2025 to the current president, Chris Green, we are respectfully requesting additional time to prepare a more robust response to the details behind the appeal request. With that said, we assume that the City Council hearing would also be delayed to, perhaps, a later date in September. We will be coordinating with our clients this week and hope to have a date certain to submit the additional information. Will advise you, accordingly. Please contact us should you have any questions and/or if you have additional information to share. Thank you, as always, for your time, consideration, and accommodation. As always, C.M. Florence, AICP Principal Planner OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805.541.4509 I D: 805.548.1561 I M: 805.459.9972 www.oasisassoc.com 415 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 10:56 AM To:Boswell, Mike Subject:RE: Meeting to discuss a couple of issues Great – meet you at 919 Palm on Thursday at 10, Thanks! Timmi From: Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 10:50 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Meeting to discuss a couple of issues Timmi: July 3 at 10am works for me. I'll see you then. Thanks. Mike Mike Boswell Council Member Office of the City Council E MBoswell@slocity.org C 805.748.8178 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 10:47 AM To: Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Meeting to discuss a couple of issues Hi Mike, Happy to meet. I could meet tomorrow at 3, if that works, or I have more availability on July 3 at 10 or 11 or on Monday at 1 pm. Please let me know if any of those times work for you. If not we can look further into the week. Thanks, 416 Timmi From: Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 10:37 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Meeting to discuss a couple of issues Timmi: I'd like to meet with you very soon to discuss a few issues. I had planned to wait for the upcoming study session to discuss fraternity issues, but with the Grand Jury report coming out, I don't want to wait. I'd also like to learn a little more about the Libertine issue. What is your preference for scheduling? I usually just ask Dillon to set up meetings. I do have time tomorrow if you have any open slots. Mike Mike Boswell Council Member Office of the City Council E MBoswell@slocity.org C 805.748.8178 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 417 From:Boswell, Mike Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 10:37 AM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:Meeting to discuss a couple of issues Timmi: I'd like to meet with you very soon to discuss a few issues. I had planned to wait for the upcoming study session to discuss fraternity issues, but with the Grand Jury report coming out, I don't want to wait. I'd also like to learn a little more about the Libertine issue. What is your preference for scheduling? I usually just ask Dillon to set up meetings. I do have time tomorrow if you have any open slots. Mike Mike Boswell Council Member Office of the City Council E MBoswell@slocity.org C 805.748.8178 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 418 From:Patino, Mallory Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 9:58 AM To:Matthew Cc: Subject:RE: Special Event Notification - Lambda Chi Alpha, 10/29/2025 Attachments:Invoice 00037373 (USE-0331-2023).pdf Hi Matthew, Thank you for reaching out. You will need to submit an application for the event review, but I will follow up with a more detailed response on that process and associated fees in the next week. However, in beginning looking into your request, I was notified of your outstanding invoice. The Community Development Department is still waiting on completion fees from your organization from the processing of your original use permit application (USE-0331-2023). I have attached a copy of the invoice here for your reference (Invoice # 00037373). I believe you’ve coordinated with Hannah Hanh about these fees most recently. You will need to pay the completion fees before we are able to process or review a request for a special event. Let me know if you have any questions. I’ll be in touch soon. Cheers, Mallory Patino pronouns she/her/hers Assistant Planner Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mpatino@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Matthew < Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:25 PM To: Planning <planning@slocity.org> Cc: Subject: Special Event Notification - Lambda Chi Alpha, 10/29/2025 Dear San Luis Obispo Planning Committee, My name is Matthew Gnos, and I am a representative of the Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity, located at 1264 East Foothill Blvd. We are planning to host a haunted house fundraiser at our chapter house, 1264 East Foothill Blvd, on 10/29/2025 from 8 pm to 11 pm. We expect more than 48 attendees and are therefore submitting this notice per our Conditional Use Permit. 419 We will be preparing a written notice for neighbors within 300 feet, and we are committed to complying with all relevant conditions, including the requirement for a Transportation Management Plan. To ensure we meet the city’s expectations, would you be able to provide us with a draft or template of an acceptable Transportation Management Plan for an event of this nature? We would appreciate any guidance or examples you can share. I have also CC’d Blake Brennan, our Vice President, who is leading the planning for this event. Please let us know if you require any additional documentation or clarification. We look forward to your review and approval. Best, Matthew Gnos LCA Risk Manager 420 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 8:18 AM To:kathie walker Subject:RE: Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report Hi Kathie, Thank you and yes, I have sent it over to the Planning Commissioners as well. My apologies for not including that in my last message. Have a great day! Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 8:14 AM To: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report Thank you. Would you please forward it to the Planning Commissioners, as well? They were named as being copied in my email. -Kathie On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 8:12 AM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the upcoming meeting on July 15, 2025. Please note, the agenda will be posted at least one week in advance of the meeting date. Best, 421 Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 1:28 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report Dear City Councilmembers, Transparency in government is more critical than ever. As a long-time San Luis Obispo resident who has reported illegal fraternity houses and their disruptive impact since Fall 2021, I’m deeply disheartened by your continued inaction. I’ve submitted videos, spoken during public comment, and repeatedly asked that this issue be agendized, which you have rejected. In the past four years, the only change has been that more long-time residents have left our neighborhood. The Grand Jury’s recent report, Round and Round with Town Gown, confirmed what residents have said all along: the City has failed to enforce its laws and protect our neighborhoods. The Grand Jury interviewed 15 people, primarily City staff. They reviewed a ton of documentation (including that provided by the City) and visited the neighborhood so they could assess the problem themselves. The Grand Jury does not have a political agenda, and the investigation was independent of any particular influence. When asked for comment on the Grand Jury report, the City's responses have been evasive and defensive. Mayor Erica Stewart’s claim that the matter can’t be discussed until September -despite available space on upcoming agendas - is unacceptable. The City Council is supposed to represent the residents, not the City itself. I urge you to immediately agendize the Grand Jury report and related issues for public discussion. I also request that the City Council convene a meeting that includes Cal Poly, Greek Life, the City, and Residents in the affected neighborhoods, so there can be meaningful dialogue toward solving the problem. These are some of the key points from my experience: 422  The Grand Jury cited serious concerns with illegal fraternities, enforcement failures, SLOPD leadership, and lack of transparency. I was interviewed and provided documentation requested, including recordings of the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) meetings for the past year.  Cal Poly cooperated fully with the Grand Jury, while the Police Chief blocked interviews with two senior officers, hampering the investigation. This behavior erodes public trust, particularly since complaints to the Grand Jury were against the Chief himself.  The City’s “clarifications” sent to the Grand Jury on June 20 attempted to revise findings rather than accept responsibility. The Grand Jury’s report sent to the City on June 16 was final, not a draft. The Grand Jury's policy is to share the report in advance so the City wouldn’t be blindsided, not to offer edits.  SLOPD’s response to St. Fratty’s Day (2022, 2023, 2024) was inadequate. Residents repeatedly warned the City and offered solutions. Despite claims to the contrary, streets were barricaded in 2022. My email sent in July 2022 warned of the March 2023 St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s back-to-back holiday weekend. The warning was ignored as the event doubled in size each year, until the Grand Jury finally prompted action in 2025.  The Police Chief has misrepresented facts publicly, retaliated against critics, and has not been transparent, including when asked about misinformation in the police log. I submitted documentation of efforts to silence and retaliate against the Neighborhood Representative on the SCLC, and the report was ignored.  Video documentation showed inappropriate conduct by an SLOPD officer who made disparaging remarks about neighborhood residents and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) while responding to a noise complaint. He did not know the residents involved, making his bias especially concerning. This was reported and disregarded.  Residents from the neighborhood were not included on the task force, even though this request was made during SCLC meetings.  The City has failed to act on clear evidence of illegal fraternity houses. Despite receiving Cal Poly’s AB 524 report in 2023 , a separate report with significant documentation, and continued documentation and confirmation of dozens of illegal fraternities, including 12 main chapter houses operating illegally in R1/R2 zones, these illegal fraternities are still operating. The City should have filed a Writ of Mandate to compel Cal Poly to release fraternity addresses after Cal Poly refused to provide the addresses when requested per the CA Public Records Act. I drafted one myself, but it is the City’s legal and ethical obligation to act. Residents should not have to do the work of City staff to obtain the addresses of illegal fraternity operations from Cal Poly. It is the City's responsibility to solve the illegal fraternity problem and enforce the municipal code. Here is what should happen now: 1. Agendize the Grand Jury report for immediate public discussion. 2. File a Writ of Mandate to obtain fraternity addresses from Cal Poly. 3. Begin enforcement of illegal fraternities using the proper legal standard: preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not, based on the documentation. The code enforcement officer, primarily tasked with handling the complaints against illegal fraternities, has been wrongfully dismissing complaints based on the incorrect standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. Include residents affected by St. Fratty's Day on the task force. 5. Ensure SCLC meetings are recorded and archived starting August 2025. The Grand Jury’s findings demand real action, not excuses, edits, or delays. The City now has a chance to restore public trust by responding decisively and transparently. Thank you in advance for addressing these issues. Sincerely, 423 Kathie Walker cc. Planning Commissioners; City Manager, Whitney McDonald 424 From:kathie walker < Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 8:14 AM To:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Subject:Re: Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report Thank you. Would you please forward it to the Planning Commissioners, as well? They were named as being copied in my email. -Kathie On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 8:12 AM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Kathie, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the upcoming meeting on July 15, 2025. Please note, the agenda will be posted at least one week in advance of the meeting date. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 1:28 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report 425 Dear City Councilmembers, Transparency in government is more critical than ever. As a long-time San Luis Obispo resident who has reported illegal fraternity houses and their disruptive impact since Fall 2021, I’m deeply disheartened by your continued inaction. I’ve submitted videos, spoken during public comment, and repeatedly asked that this issue be agendized, which you have rejected. In the past four years, the only change has been that more long-time residents have left our neighborhood. The Grand Jury’s recent report, Round and Round with Town Gown, confirmed what residents have said all along: the City has failed to enforce its laws and protect our neighborhoods. The Grand Jury interviewed 15 people, primarily City staff. They reviewed a ton of documentation (including that provided by the City) and visited the neighborhood so they could assess the problem themselves. The Grand Jury does not have a political agenda, and the investigation was independent of any particular influence. When asked for comment on the Grand Jury report, the City's responses have been evasive and defensive. Mayor Erica Stewart’s claim that the matter can’t be discussed until September -despite available space on upcoming agendas - is unacceptable. The City Council is supposed to represent the residents, not the City itself. I urge you to immediately agendize the Grand Jury report and related issues for public discussion. I also request that the City Council convene a meeting that includes Cal Poly, Greek Life, the City, and Residents in the affected neighborhoods, so there can be meaningful dialogue toward solving the problem. These are some of the key points from my experience:  The Grand Jury cited serious concerns with illegal fraternities, enforcement failures, SLOPD leadership, and lack of transparency. I was interviewed and provided documentation requested, including recordings of the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) meetings for the past year.  Cal Poly cooperated fully with the Grand Jury, while the Police Chief blocked interviews with two senior officers, hampering the investigation. This behavior erodes public trust, particularly since complaints to the Grand Jury were against the Chief himself.  The City’s “clarifications” sent to the Grand Jury on June 20 attempted to revise findings rather than accept responsibility. The Grand Jury’s report sent to the City on June 16 was final, not a draft. The Grand Jury's policy is to share the report in advance so the City wouldn’t be blindsided, not to offer edits.  SLOPD’s response to St. Fratty’s Day (2022, 2023, 2024) was inadequate. Residents repeatedly warned the City and offered solutions. Despite claims to the contrary, streets were barricaded in 2022. My email sent in July 2022 warned of the March 2023 St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s back-to-back holiday weekend. The warning was ignored as the event doubled in size each year, until the Grand Jury finally prompted action in 2025.  The Police Chief has misrepresented facts publicly, retaliated against critics, and has not been transparent, including when asked about misinformation in the police log. I submitted documentation of efforts to silence and retaliate against the Neighborhood Representative on the SCLC, and the report was ignored.  Video documentation showed inappropriate conduct by an SLOPD officer who made disparaging remarks about neighborhood residents and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) while responding to a noise complaint. He did not know the residents involved, making his bias especially concerning. This was reported and disregarded.  Residents from the neighborhood were not included on the task force, even though this request was made during SCLC meetings.  The City has failed to act on clear evidence of illegal fraternity houses. Despite receiving Cal Poly’s AB 524 report in 2023 , a separate report with significant documentation, and continued documentation and confirmation of dozens of illegal 426 fraternities, including 12 main chapter houses operating illegally in R1/R2 zones, these illegal fraternities are still operating. The City should have filed a Writ of Mandate to compel Cal Poly to release fraternity addresses after Cal Poly refused to provide the addresses when requested per the CA Public Records Act. I drafted one myself, but it is the City’s legal and ethical obligation to act. Residents should not have to do the work of City staff to obtain the addresses of illegal fraternity operations from Cal Poly. It is the City's responsibility to solve the illegal fraternity problem and enforce the municipal code. Here is what should happen now: 1. Agendize the Grand Jury report for immediate public discussion. 2. File a Writ of Mandate to obtain fraternity addresses from Cal Poly. 3. Begin enforcement of illegal fraternities using the proper legal standard: preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not, based on the documentation. The code enforcement officer, primarily tasked with handling the complaints against illegal fraternities, has been wrongfully dismissing complaints based on the incorrect standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. Include residents affected by St. Fratty's Day on the task force. 5. Ensure SCLC meetings are recorded and archived starting August 2025. The Grand Jury’s findings demand real action, not excuses, edits, or delays. The City now has a chance to restore public trust by responding decisively and transparently. Thank you in advance for addressing these issues. Sincerely, Kathie Walker cc. Planning Commissioners; City Manager, Whitney McDonald 427 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 8:12 AM To:kathie walker Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report Hi Kathie, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the upcoming meeting on July 15, 2025. Please note, the agenda will be posted at least one week in advance of the meeting date. Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant II City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: kathie walker < Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 1:28 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Cc: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report Dear City Councilmembers, Transparency in government is more critical than ever. As a long-time San Luis Obispo resident who has reported illegal fraternity houses and their disruptive impact since Fall 2021, I’m deeply disheartened by your continued inaction. I’ve submitted videos, spoken during public comment, and repeatedly asked that this issue be agendized, which you have rejected. In the past four years, the only change has been that more long-time residents have left our neighborhood. The Grand Jury’s recent report, Round and Round with Town Gown, confirmed what residents have said all along: the City has failed to enforce its laws and protect our neighborhoods. The Grand Jury interviewed 15 people, primarily City staff. They reviewed a ton of documentation (including that provided by the City) and visited the neighborhood so they could assess the problem themselves. The Grand Jury does not have a political agenda, and the investigation was independent of any particular influence. 428 When asked for comment on the Grand Jury report, the City's responses have been evasive and defensive. Mayor Erica Stewart’s claim that the matter can’t be discussed until September -despite available space on upcoming agendas - is unacceptable. The City Council is supposed to represent the residents, not the City itself. I urge you to immediately agendize the Grand Jury report and related issues for public discussion. I also request that the City Council convene a meeting that includes Cal Poly, Greek Life, the City, and Residents in the affected neighborhoods, so there can be meaningful dialogue toward solving the problem. These are some of the key points from my experience:  The Grand Jury cited serious concerns with illegal fraternities, enforcement failures, SLOPD leadership, and lack of transparency. I was interviewed and provided documentation requested, including recordings of the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) meetings for the past year.  Cal Poly cooperated fully with the Grand Jury, while the Police Chief blocked interviews with two senior officers, hampering the investigation. This behavior erodes public trust, particularly since complaints to the Grand Jury were against the Chief himself.  The City’s “clarifications” sent to the Grand Jury on June 20 attempted to revise findings rather than accept responsibility. The Grand Jury’s report sent to the City on June 16 was final, not a draft. The Grand Jury's policy is to share the report in advance so the City wouldn’t be blindsided, not to offer edits.  SLOPD’s response to St. Fratty’s Day (2022, 2023, 2024) was inadequate. Residents repeatedly warned the City and offered solutions. Despite claims to the contrary, streets were barricaded in 2022. My email sent in July 2022 warned of the March 2023 St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s back-to-back holiday weekend. The warning was ignored as the event doubled in size each year, until the Grand Jury finally prompted action in 2025.  The Police Chief has misrepresented facts publicly, retaliated against critics, and has not been transparent, including when asked about misinformation in the police log. I submitted documentation of efforts to silence and retaliate against the Neighborhood Representative on the SCLC, and the report was ignored.  Video documentation showed inappropriate conduct by an SLOPD officer who made disparaging remarks about neighborhood residents and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) while responding to a noise complaint. He did not know the residents involved, making his bias especially concerning. This was reported and disregarded.  Residents from the neighborhood were not included on the task force, even though this request was made during SCLC meetings.  The City has failed to act on clear evidence of illegal fraternity houses. Despite receiving Cal Poly’s AB 524 report in 2023 , a separate report with significant documentation, and continued documentation and confirmation of dozens of illegal fraternities, including 12 main chapter houses operating illegally in R1/R2 zones, these illegal fraternities are still operating. The City should have filed a Writ of Mandate to compel Cal Poly to release fraternity addresses after Cal Poly refused to provide the addresses when requested per the CA Public Records Act. I drafted one myself, but it is the City’s legal and ethical obligation to act. Residents should not have to do the work of City staff to obtain the addresses of illegal fraternity operations from Cal Poly. It is the City's responsibility to solve the illegal fraternity problem and enforce the municipal code. Here is what should happen now: 1. Agendize the Grand Jury report for immediate public discussion. 2. File a Writ of Mandate to obtain fraternity addresses from Cal Poly. 3. Begin enforcement of illegal fraternities using the proper legal standard: preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not, based on the documentation. The code enforcement officer, primarily tasked with handling the complaints against illegal fraternities, has been wrongfully dismissing complaints based on the incorrect standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt. 429 4. Include residents affected by St. Fratty's Day on the task force. 5. Ensure SCLC meetings are recorded and archived starting August 2025. The Grand Jury’s findings demand real action, not excuses, edits, or delays. The City now has a chance to restore public trust by responding decisively and transparently. Thank you in advance for addressing these issues. Sincerely, Kathie Walker cc. Planning Commissioners; City Manager, Whitney McDonald 430 From:Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent:Monday, June 30, 2025 4:29 PM To:James, Dillon Subject:Re: Greek Life Meeting Great, thanks! Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 at 4:27 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Thank you! Just sent the update. Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 4:23 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting We’ll be in the admin building (01), room 409. Thanks! Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Thursday, June 26, 2025 at 2:24 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, Sounds good—invite coming shortly. Could you confirm a good meeting location on campus? First meeting will be at City Hall. 431 Thanks! Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 2:21 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting September 3rd at 3pm is the winner! Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:36 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting For the second meeting, here's when Whitney, Scott, Greg, and Timmi could meet next:  Monday, August 18, 9am or 10am  Wednesday, August 20, 4pm  Tuesday, August 26, 3pm or 4pm  Wednesday, September 3, 3pm We are about to enter the vacation madness season, hence the scattered availability on our end. Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org 432 The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:31 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting That’s it! Thanks Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:30 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting You've got it. Confirming the CP attendees are:  You  Jo Campbell  Joy Pederson  Jason Mockford  Terrance Leshae Harris Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:27 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Please remove Elizabeth and add Terrance Leshae Harris tharris@calpoly.edu from the meeting invite. Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:25 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting 433 Hi Courtney, Can you confirm a good meeting location for both of these? Or were you thinking of holding on at City Hall, one on- campus? Thanks again. Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:24 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Yes – let’s do that Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:20 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>, Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, This has been delayed because we have a scheduling conflict with the second meeting and I'm looking at a few options. If you'd like, I can send out an invitation for the first meeting, and you and I can separately connect to find another good date/time for the second meeting. Would that work for you? Thanks! Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 434 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 12:59 PM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Dillon, Our team hasn’t seen these meetings on the calendar yet. Can you please send an invitation out? Courtney From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 at 10:28 AM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>, James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Greek Life Meeting Whoops! Thanks and sounds good. Greg From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:49 AM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting We were hoping for two meetings… Timmi and anyone else you think is relevant to the conversation is welcome. Thanks! Courtney From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 at 9:32 AM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>, James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Greek Life Meeting Thanks, all. Let’s do the earlier date if possible. Can Timmi attend as well? Greg From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:22 AM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> 435 Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Yes please – do you have a room we can meet in or should we reserve a room at Cal Poly? In addition to myself, can you please invite: Jo Campbell jcampb33@calpoly.edu; Joy M. Pedersen jmpeders@calpoly.edu; Jason Mockford jmockfor@calpoly.edu; Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola eaielloc@calpoly.edu Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 at 5:37 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>, Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi all, It may take a bit of reshuffling of some internal meetings, but as of right now, it looks like everyone on this thread should be able to make the following two options:  July 16th, 2:00-3:00pm  July 31st, 10:00-11:00am Let me know if I should hold both of these times for everyone. Thank you! Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 5:28 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Cc: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, Thanks for reaching out and my apologies for the delay. I just needed to connect with folks on the City side. The meeting should include Whitney, Scott, Timmi and myself. I’m looping in Dylan from our team to compare schedules and get something on calendars. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. Greg From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 4:02 PM 436 To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Greek Life Meeting Hi Greg, Thank you for the brainstorm earlier on next steps in partnership around fraternities and sororities in our neighborhoods and CUPs. I know I took advantage of a call on a completely different topic! 뇤눎눐눑눒눏 Looping in Scott since CDD is one of his departments. I’d like to set up two meetings over the summer where staff on this issue from both institutions can come together and continue the conversation about creative solutions/ideas. These have been the participants in these meetings in the past on our end: Courtney Kienow Jo Campbell Joy Pedersen – new to meetings Jason Mockford Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola We are all available on the following dates/times: June 18th 8:30-9:45 July 16th 2-3pm July 23rd 9-10:15am July 31st 10-11am August 6th 9-11am I know Scott attended the last one and you’ve attended some of the ones in the past. Please let me know if two of these options can work for the appropriate members of your team. Warmly, Courtney Courtney Kienow pronouns she/hers (why is this important?) Director of Community Relations and Economic Development Office of the President Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA _____ office 805-756-6000 direct 805-756-6098 www.calpoly.edu 437 From:kathie walker < Sent:Monday, June 30, 2025 1:28 PM To:E-mail Council Website Cc:Advisory Bodies; McDonald, Whitney Subject:Urgent Request for Transparency and Action on Grand Jury Report Dear City Councilmembers, Transparency in government is more critical than ever. As a long-time San Luis Obispo resident who has reported illegal fraternity houses and their disruptive impact since Fall 2021, I’m deeply disheartened by your continued inaction. I’ve submitted videos, spoken during public comment, and repeatedly asked that this issue be agendized, which you have rejected. In the past four years, the only change has been that more long-time residents have left our neighborhood. The Grand Jury’s recent report, Round and Round with Town Gown, confirmed what residents have said all along: the City has failed to enforce its laws and protect our neighborhoods. The Grand Jury interviewed 15 people, primarily City staff. They reviewed a ton of documentation (including that provided by the City) and visited the neighborhood so they could assess the problem themselves. The Grand Jury does not have a political agenda, and the investigation was independent of any particular influence. When asked for comment on the Grand Jury report, the City's responses have been evasive and defensive. Mayor Erica Stewart’s claim that the matter can’t be discussed until September -despite available space on upcoming agendas - is unacceptable. The City Council is supposed to represent the residents, not the City itself. I urge you to immediately agendize the Grand Jury report and related issues for public discussion. I also request that the City Council convene a meeting that includes Cal Poly, Greek Life, the City, and Residents in the affected neighborhoods, so there can be meaningful dialogue toward solving the problem. These are some of the key points from my experience:  The Grand Jury cited serious concerns with illegal fraternities, enforcement failures, SLOPD leadership, and lack of transparency. I was interviewed and provided documentation requested, including recordings of the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) meetings for the past year.  Cal Poly cooperated fully with the Grand Jury, while the Police Chief blocked interviews with two senior officers, hampering the investigation. This behavior erodes public trust, particularly since complaints to the Grand Jury were against the Chief himself.  The City’s “clarifications” sent to the Grand Jury on June 20 attempted to revise findings rather than accept responsibility. The Grand Jury’s report sent to the City on June 16 was final, not a draft. The Grand Jury's policy is to share the report in advance so the City wouldn’t be blindsided, not to offer edits.  SLOPD’s response to St. Fratty’s Day (2022, 2023, 2024) was inadequate. Residents repeatedly warned the City and offered solutions. Despite claims to the contrary, streets were barricaded in 2022. My email sent in July 2022 warned of the March 2023 St. Patrick’s Day and St. Fratty’s back-to-back holiday weekend. The warning was ignored as the event doubled in size each year, until the Grand Jury finally prompted action in 2025.  The Police Chief has misrepresented facts publicly, retaliated against critics, and has not been transparent, including when asked about misinformation in the police log. I submitted documentation of efforts to silence and retaliate against the Neighborhood Representative on the SCLC, and the report was ignored. 438  Video documentation showed inappropriate conduct by an SLOPD officer who made disparaging remarks about neighborhood residents and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) while responding to a noise complaint. He did not know the residents involved, making his bias especially concerning. This was reported and disregarded.  Residents from the neighborhood were not included on the task force, even though this request was made during SCLC meetings.  The City has failed to act on clear evidence of illegal fraternity houses. Despite receiving Cal Poly’s AB 524 report in 2023 , a separate report with significant documentation, and continued documentation and confirmation of dozens of illegal fraternities, including 12 main chapter houses operating illegally in R1/R2 zones, these illegal fraternities are still operating. The City should have filed a Writ of Mandate to compel Cal Poly to release fraternity addresses after Cal Poly refused to provide the addresses when requested per the CA Public Records Act. I drafted one myself, but it is the City’s legal and ethical obligation to act. Residents should not have to do the work of City staff to obtain the addresses of illegal fraternity operations from Cal Poly. It is the City's responsibility to solve the illegal fraternity problem and enforce the municipal code. Here is what should happen now: 1. Agendize the Grand Jury report for immediate public discussion. 2. File a Writ of Mandate to obtain fraternity addresses from Cal Poly. 3. Begin enforcement of illegal fraternities using the proper legal standard: preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not, based on the documentation. The code enforcement officer, primarily tasked with handling the complaints against illegal fraternities, has been wrongfully dismissing complaints based on the incorrect standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. Include residents affected by St. Fratty's Day on the task force. 5. Ensure SCLC meetings are recorded and archived starting August 2025. The Grand Jury’s findings demand real action, not excuses, edits, or delays. The City now has a chance to restore public trust by responding decisively and transparently. Thank you in advance for addressing these issues. Sincerely, Kathie Walker cc. Planning Commissioners; City Manager, Whitney McDonald 439 From:Alice Waters <awaters@alphachiomega.org> Sent:Monday, June 30, 2025 1:10 PM To:Business, Tax Cc:Alice Waters Subject:RE: Business License Attention Required Attachments:Eps Ome Inc Stmnt-Revised for 07.31.2024.xlsx Thank you for reaching out. I apologize, I made a mistake on the renewal. I reported the revenue for the incorrect chapter on the business license renewal. Please see the attached correct income statement for Epsilon Omega as of 7/31/2024. The correct revenue is $ The incorrect amount reported was $ Please let me know how to get this corrected. I apologize for the error. Thank you for your assistance. Alice Alice Waters Senior Staff Accountant Alpha Chi Omega Fraternity, Inc. 5635 Castle Creek Parkway N. Dr. Indianapolis, IN 46250 317-579-5050 ext: 0229 Fax: 317-579-5051 From: bt@slocity.org <bt@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 1:08 PM To: Alice Waters <awaters@alphachiomega.org> Subject: Business License Attention Required Hello Alpha Chi Omega National Housing Corporation, Account Number: 109713 Your City of San Luis Obispo business license renewal and payment has been received. However, we cannot issue a license at this time because there was a significant variance in the gross receipts compared to the prior fiscal year. To receive your business license and avoid potential late fees, please provide a written explanation for the gross receipt variance. A reply to this email is sufficient. Please respond within the next ten days. Thank you, City of San Luis Obispo Business License & Tax Division 990 Palm St San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7134 Alpha Chi Omega Housing Corporation Custom Management Report Actual Year to Dat 07/31/2024 eps ome - Epsilon Omega 440 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Monday, June 30, 2025 10:52 AM To: Subject:RE: Fraternity at 1271-1275 Stafford Thank you, any photo documentation you have will be helpful to the code enforcement team. You can feel free to email them to me, or upload them with a complaint that you file at https://www.slocity.org/services/how-do-i/ask-slo Thank you, Timmi From: < Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 10:21 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Fraternity at 1271-1275 Stafford Dear Timmi, I can provide photo documentation of the fraternity alpha kappa psi at 1271-1275 Stafford St. This is a R-1 zone and the designation has meaning and enforcement. I will keep you informed if this fraternity returns the fall quarter. Thank you On Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 3:28 PM wrote: Thank you for your response. On Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 3:17 PM Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: I received your email and voicemail with your concerns about 1271-1275 Stafford and forwarded it along to the Code Enforcement Division. I am sorry to hear about your experiences with your neighbors. In regards to the accumulation of trash on the site – there have been several code enforcement actions related to this in the past year or so. Most recently, Code enforcement staff sent a notice of violation on May 1 and a citation 441 because of continued non-compliance in early June. This case is still open and code enforcement is still actively working to attempt to gain compliance from the property owner/occupants to comply with the Code. We will continue to visit the site and make contact with the owner/occupants until the issue is addressed. In regards to the suspected Fraternity House – you are correct, there cannot be a fraternity house in this zone. I have forwarded your complaint on to code enforcement for investigation. If evidence exists that a fraternity house is operating at the site, then a notice of violation will be issued. If not, we will still reach out to the property owner to inform them of the zoning code limitations on Greek houses and the consequences of operating a fraternity in an R- 1 zone. Thank you, and please continue to report issues as they arise to SLO Code Enforcement. We will investigate all complaints we receive and work to gain compliance with City codes and regulations, Timmi 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 442 From: Sent:Monday, June 30, 2025 10:21 AM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:Re: Fraternity at 1271-1275 Stafford Dear Timmi, I can provide photo documentation of the fraternity alpha kappa psi at 1271-1275 Stafford St. This is a R-1 zone and the designation has meaning and enforcement. I will keep you informed if this fraternity returns the fall quarter. Thank you On Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 3:28 PM wrote: Thank you for your response. On Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 3:17 PM Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: I received your email and voicemail with your concerns about 1271-1275 Stafford and forwarded it along to the Code Enforcement Division. I am sorry to hear about your experiences with your neighbors. In regards to the accumulation of trash on the site – there have been several code enforcement actions related to this in the past year or so. Most recently, Code enforcement staff sent a notice of violation on May 1 and a citation because of continued non-compliance in early June. This case is still open and code enforcement is still actively working to attempt to gain compliance from the property owner/occupants to comply with the Code. We will continue to visit the site and make contact with the owner/occupants until the issue is addressed. In regards to the suspected Fraternity House – you are correct, there cannot be a fraternity house in this zone. I have forwarded your complaint on to code enforcement for investigation. If evidence exists that a fraternity house is operating at the site, then a notice of violation will be issued. If not, we will still reach out to the property owner to inform them of the zoning code limitations on Greek houses and the consequences of operating a fraternity in an R- 1 zone. Thank you, and please continue to report issues as they arise to SLO Code Enforcement. We will investigate all complaints we receive and work to gain compliance with City codes and regulations, 443 Timmi 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 444 From:Szentesi, Whit Sent:Monday, June 30, 2025 9:21 AM To:news@keyt.com Cc:alissa.orozco@keyt.com Subject:Corrections and Statement Attachments:20250620_City of SLO Memo to GJ_Town & Gown.pdf Hi there, I’m requesting an update to the story about the Grand Jury report: https://keyt.com/lifestyle/housing/2025/06/27/san- luis-obispo-county-grand-jury-report-says-lack-of-enforcement-fuels-housing-turmoil-in-slo/ The City of San Luis Obispo’s official statement regarding this matter is below. The City is aware of the Grand Jury’s recent report and will be providing a detailed response within the required 90-day period. The City has fully cooperated with the Grand Jury with senior staff from multiple departments (including the Police Chief, Police Department Public Affairs Manager, Community Development Director, Code Enforcement staff, City Manager, and a Council Member) testifying before the Grand Jury in addition to providing significant amounts of information in response to requests. We are concerned with both the factual inaccuracies (see the attached, which was also sent to the Grand Jury on June 20, 2025) and conclusions drawn in the report. It’s important to know that the City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of innovative approaches to addressing neighborhood wellness and we will continue to work with our community to maintain and improve our neighborhoods. This requires everyone to do their part, work together, and abide by the laws our community has in place. Our balanced approach includes education, collaboration, and law enforcement and we are proud to have a demonstrated history of using constructive feedback to identify areas of concern and respond to issues as they arise. More details about our response to the Grand Jury report will be made available soon. Thanks, Whitney Whit Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E wszentes@slocity.org T 805.783.7716 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications City of San Luis Obispo, City Administration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7114, slocity.org 1 To: The Grand Jury of San Luis Obispo County Via: Foreperson, Bonnie McKrill From: The City of San Luis Obispo Date: June 20, 2025 Re: Clarification of Factual Inconsistencies in Report, Round & Round with Town & Gown The City of San Luis Obispo (City) team appreciates the opportunity afforded by the Grand Jury to review the report entitled “Round & Round with Town & Gown” ahead of publication. We believe this opportunity will help ensure that the community has the best available information related to this important issue. With that in mind, the City has reviewed the report contents and is offering clarifications of fact in the table below to help correct what we believe may be inaccuracies in the draft report. Text in the “Quote from Report” column is copy-pasted from the draft Grand Jury report the City reviewed. The City’s concerns as to the accuracy of each quote are in the far-right column. Page # Quote from Report Factual Problem 1 Many students now reside in single- family homes, often exceeding their intended occupancy. The phrase “intended occupancy” is unclear and not reflective of a defined legal term. Legal occupancy is a concrete, discernable number derived from the California Building Code. Please provide citation to relevant occupancy data supporting the conclusion stated. 1 Over the past two decades, SLO has experienced significant growth, driven The population of the City of SLO has not increased significantly over the last two decades and remains under 50,000 at the last census (2020). Page 2 of 27 in part by the expansion of its university, California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), and the increasing student population. The enrollment of Cal Poly is a separate number and is not captured in the census for the City, as Cal Poly is not located in the City and the campus houses significant portions of its student body on its campus. Even as to students who reside in housing within the City of San Luis Obispo, those students may have been counted as living at a City address, or at their permanent residence address somewhere outside City limits. It would be more accurate to say that Cal Poly’s student population has had significant growth. 1 SLO has experienced steady population growth, mirroring broader urban expansion trends across California. In 2005, the city’s population stood at approximately 44,380, and, by 2025, it had risen to 50,612, reflecting a 14% increase. The 2025 population number appears to be a projection and is not a verified current number. Please accurately reflect the City’s population based on a statistically valid and verified source (i.e., U.S. Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program (PEP) or the American Community Survey). 1-2 As a result, university students now comprise nearly 46% of the city's total population… This is incorrect. Not all university students live in the City and, at the time of each census, not all students who do reside in the City during the school year would necessarily be counted as City residents for census purposes. Cal Poly’s student enrollment is not a de facto subset of census numbers or City population estimates. Again, Cal Poly’s campus, and therefore campus housing, is not within the City limits. 2 … significantly influencing housing availability both on and off campus, infrastructure demands, and neighboring residential community dynamics. Provide factual details to support these general conclusions. The statement lacks clarity. 2 Many long-term residents, particularly families, cherish the stability and tranquility of their neighborhoods but now face the challenge of residing in The term “Family(ies)” is used more than once in the report but is undefined. If it refers to a household with school-aged children, by definition those children did not exist 20 years ago (the look-back period that is referred to by the population numbers). Page 3 of 27 an increasingly student-centered neighborhood. 2 …large, unsanctioned street parties that escalate into public disturbances, injuries, and property damage. This use of “unsanctioned street parties” seems focused on the St. Patrick’s Day related event (“St. Fratty’s Day”), which is a singular, annual occurrence. If there are other instances of such street parties being referenced, clarification is requested as to where and when those took place. 2 The complaints alleged that the City of SLO and Cal Poly officials were failing to enforce existing rules and municipal ordinances, that citizen complaints were ignored, and neither took sufficient action to restore order. All official citizen complaints received by the Police Department and the Code Enforcement Division are fully investigated. If the report is defining “complaint" in a specific way, that definition should be included in the glossary. 2 The San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury (SLOCGJ) sought to objectively assess the extent of these issues and determine whether city officials were implementing timely and sufficient countermeasures to address them effectively. The report’s focus on the City leaves out the role of Cal Poly and property owners in addressing issues. Looking solely at the City's role misses significant pieces of the picture, most notably Cal Poly and their much more comprehensive access to student information and greater ability to regulate student conduct, and property owners/landlords/property managers responsible for management of their rental properties in the City and their tenants’ use of their properties in a manner that facilitates neighborhood nuisances. 3 conducted fifteen interviews with San Luis Obispo city residents, city leadership (including City Council members, Community Development and Police Department officials), city personnel (such as Code Enforcement), and leadership from Cal Poly Implies that no interview was held with the City Manager and leaves out the interview with the non-sworn Police staff member who is one of the persons most knowledgeable on town-gown topics. Page 4 of 27 4 conducted analyses of policies and laws, including… Cal Poly’s General Plan Clarify what document this is referring to as Cal Poly does not have a general plan. 4 conducted comparative research, including an investigation of cities with overlay zones to understand their implementation and impact. Explored various policing models, such as the “Do No Harm” approach, examined strategies used by other cities addressing similar university-related challenges, and analyzed party ordinances from other municipalities. More specificity as to what materials are being referenced would be helpful context for readers. The attached bibliography contains general links to website home pages, rather than pinpoint resources seemingly being referenced, and there are no citations within the report connecting statements to sources. 5 The “Do No Harm” approach was adopted not only due to concern for officer safety but because a more aggressive officer presence could incite a riot. Though quoted in the report as an official term, “Do No Harm” is not a phrase used by the City Police department. However, the technique described is indeed one SLOPD planned and implemented (to not use aggression should students occupy a street, with a focus on de- escalation, community safety, closing affected streets, and other tactics due to the high risk of crowds turning violent, the prevalence of alcohol impaired judgment, and past experiences in SLO with riots). 5 In 2024 the SLO City Chief of Police deemed their efforts a success as no harm was done to officers or attendees. However, the residents in the area experienced property damage to their residences and personal property. It is an accurate data point that there were minimal arrests and citations in 2024 given the crowd size, and property damage was minimal overall. The comparison within this statement, however, implies a disregard for property damage, which is false. 5 The SLOCGJ wanted to determine the validity of the alleged citizen complaints against the SLOPD as well A citizen complaint against a police officer or department has a specific meaning and triggers a formal process for investigation. The reported dissatisfaction with prioritization of police resources that was investigated by the Grand Jury should be distinguished from the formal Page 5 of 27 as verify statements received from others during our investigation. complaint investigation process, which is diligently followed by the City/SLOPD. (See California Penal Code Section 832.5.) 5 We were blocked in this effort by two senior police official’s [sic] unwillingness to grant an interview. The Grand Jury interviewed the City Chief of Police and its Public Affairs Manager, both providing extensive and sworn testimony. These two staff members are the City’s most knowledgeable on the strategic, operational, prioritization and historical perspectives of law enforcement and community relations related to the student impacts on City residents and activities. The Grand Jury chose not to subpoena any witnesses and there was no need for additional City staff to divert scarce operational resources toward likely incomplete and/or duplicative appearances that would have been inefficient and operationally unsupportable based on the City’s understanding of the scope of inquiry. In addition, the police department provided hundreds of requested records and communications, and responded to multiple sets of subsequent and follow-up questions to accurately clarify and verify any and all information requested by or testimony provided to the Grand Jury, which reflects the most complete and accurate source of information. 5-6 In 2024 fireworks were set off in the Alta Vista neighborhood between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., jolting some residents and their families awake. This incident is unverified. On March 16, 2024, the City received approximately 30 noise/party calls for service between 02:15am and 08:00am. None of those calls indicated fireworks were heard. 6 The damage was so extensive that Cal Poly had to close some dorms for two days to repair the damage. This statement is incorrect. Muir residence hall closed for a few hours and was reopened the same day to residents. 6 No representatives from the surrounding neighborhoods were invited to participate in the task force. The City, Cal Poly, and representatives of the community, including representatives of the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) group, and members of the public, participate in monthly Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC) meetings where town-gown issues are discussed. Following the 2024 St. Patrick’s Day event and at the request of the San Luis Obispo City Manager, all SCLC agendas had a standing item for reports to be provided by both the City and Cal Poly regarding Page 6 of 27 their preparations and work to address St. Patrick’s Day. To the extent that outcomes from the task force meetings could be shared with the group, they were at that time, on a monthly basis. During these monthly meetings, SCLC members and the public were provided opportunities to ask questions and provide feedback. Additionally, several City officials met with RQN representatives well in advance of the 2025 St. Patrick’s Day event to discuss detailed information regarding the City’s preparations. 7 The City of SLO, concerned about the safety of their neighborhoods, the disruptions to the residents, and the negative image of the City of SLO, developed their own task force headed up by the SLO City Police Department. Although work was done throughout the year to prepare for the 2025 St. Fratty’s Day event, there was no SLOPD “Task Force” officially formed. SLOP D engaged in the same planning and preparation process as in prior years, but with a larger response planned for 2025, which included coordination with other law enforcement agencies, Cal Poly, and other City departments such as Fire, Public Works, and Parks & Recreation. 7 The messaging developed by the City of SLO was “Do Not Come, the party is over.” The $125,000 cost estimate listed at the end of this paragraph in the report includes the marketing costs for 2025. The communication plan was extensive with staff spending approximately 40 hours in the months leading up to St. Patrick’s Day speaking to student groups on campus about the Safety Enhancement Zone and communicating to them what to expect. TV ads, radio ads, “every door direct mail” postcards to 8000 addresses, additional postcards handed out by patrol, paid social ads, message boards, three radio station in-person interviews, and Adam Montiel's podcast were all completed to inform students prior to the day of the event. It should also be noted that the City participates annually in Cal Poly Day Week of Welcome to inform and set conduct expectations with each successive year of new students to Cal Poly, and has done so for many, many years. 7 In 2025, the SLO Police Department activated the Emergency Operations Center (EOC)… Cal Poly activated their EOC. The City activated a Department Operations Center (DOC) at the Police Department, which is different from the City’s Emergency Operations Center, so this is an inaccurate statement as to the City. Page 7 of 27 7 Due to the increased law enforcement presence, the neighborhood of Alta Vista did not experience damage to property and there was no unsanctioned street party. The phrasing here suggests that the number of officers was the only factor in the reduction of disturbances, leaving out important details about the work and effort SLOPD did to prepare a plan, broadly communicate, and execute it with coordination and support from multiple other City departments as well as many other agencies. Multiple patrol methods were used including foot patrols, bicycle patrols, motorcycle patrols and mounted horse patrols. Walkways and access routes to and from campus were manned with officers and signs/barriers, directing revelers back out of the area. In addition, rental lighting and electronic street signage were deployed in the area to improve safety and inform visitors of the enforcement activities. A nearby Law Enforcement field campus included support services, a mobile booking station staffed by the San Luis Obispo Sheriff's Office, as well as Fire Department personnel for medical support, and City Public Works personnel for any road closure needs. The Police department used extensive mobile surveillance cameras mounted on street poles, and multiple drones to provide live video feeds back to the DOC. SLOPD also leveraged relationships with AT&T and Verizon to provide increased bandwith and network monitoring to ensure communications capabilities during the event. The National Guard also assisted by providing technology support used to track officers in the field for situational awareness as to their locations. The CHP also assisted on the night prior to the event by conducting a DUI checkpoint and screened over 1000 vehicles to deter partying in the hours leading up to the event. 7 The SLO Chief of Police Department estimated costs to the city will be approximately $125,000. This estimate does not include any costs borne by other Law Enforcement agencies who assisted and did not charge the City for their time. The $125,000 number also does not include any City personnel who were already scheduled to work, as it was calculated on overtime and equipment/logistics needed for the event. Page 8 of 27 7 The concert at Cal Poly was deemed a success as over 6,000 students attended the event. The event was limited to 5,000 students; however, un- ticketed students pushed through the temporary fencing so they could get into the event. Though this is concerning, no one was seriously injured. When the fence around the event was breached, Cal Poly EOC requested help from the SLOPD DOC as they needed more officers to manage the crowd. Two 12-Officer teams were immediately sent to respond to the concert venue and help restore order. 7 The alternative activity on campus ended around 10:30 a.m. The report does not include an estimate of Cal Poly’s costs to host the concert/alternative activity, which have been made publicly available. This data would seem to be important to facilitate fully informed community-wide assessment of the relative costs and benefits of the comprehensive prevention and response effort. 8 SLO Municipal Code 9.12 (see Bibliography) provides that “…it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully or negligently make or continue to make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, or permit or allow to be made or continued any noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes any discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity in the area.” This quote is from section 9.12.040 of the SLO Municipal Code. 8 The specific code violation encompassed in the above-mentioned Code states that the hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following morning are to remain quiet. The reference to the 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. timeframe is in SLO Municipal Code section 9.12.050 and technically only applies to: “Radios, Television Sets, Musical Instruments and Similar Devices. Operating, playing or permitting the operation or playing of any radio, television set, phonograph, drum, musical instrument, or similar device which Page 9 of 27 produces or reproduces sound.” There is a similar provision in a separate section that restricts construction noise during the same timeframe. 8 It should also be noted that the Noise Control Officer may grant exceptions to this restriction. SLO Municipal Code section 9.12.100 provides for an exception process that requires a permit application and establishing criteria by which either the SLOPD Chief or the Community Development Director may grant exceptions. The sentence quoted here does not reflect the correct permitting and approval process required for the exception. 8-9 …noise citations in neighborhoods near the campus were issued an average of more than 3 times per week during the school session. This totaled 139 citations in the Alta Vista neighborhood, with one house alone receiving 17 citations. Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that this situation remains - to this date - unabated. Such is the irritation of area residents, that many have fled the area. There has been a 50% reduction in noise calls received by SLOPD over the past 10 years. It is important for the report to acknowledge that the problem was much worse, and great effort has been made to achieve this reduction in calls for service. Use of phrases like “fully enforced” and “unabated” implies an expectation that there should be no noise complaint calls from any neighborhood, which is unreasonable and unattainable. There is also ambiguity as to the timeframe of these citation numbers and to what property the 17 citations were issued. Please clarify what data points are being cited here as our data does not support this conclusion. In contradiction to the statement that noise violations are being allowed to continue “unabated,” the City’s Planning Commission revoked two CUPs for fraternities near campus (1236 Monte Vista Place and 1304 Foothill Blvd) on June 11, 2025, in part due to noise violations. The Planning Commission is reviewing a third fraternity CUP for modification or revocation on June 25, 2025. The City has also cited multiple houses for illegal fraternity operations in R-1 zones as result of noise complaints, and dozens of citations are issued each year. 9 To aid in noise ordinance enforcement the SLOPD employs the assistance of Cal Poly students who are enrolled in a SNAP Officers are City employees, not enrolled in any school program, and are a mix of Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and Hancock College students. Page 10 of 27 program called the Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP). 9 These students interface with groups of partiers in residences in the affected area who are violating the noise ordinance. SNAP Officers respond to noise complaints city-wide, not just adjacent to campus. 9 These unarmed SNAP students speak to the offending parties and attempt to get them to comply with the city’s noise standards. There are, however, only a handful of SNAP students. They wear civilian uniforms and work in pairs. They also have radios so that they may contact the police when required. SNAP are student civilian employees of the Police Department who operate as a first response to noise calls. Their primary objective is to educate residents about the City’s noise ordinance, issue a written warning where appropriate, and gain compliance to end the noise disturbance, thus keeping sworn officers free to handle other public safety calls for service. SNAP employees do not carry weapons, and they wear polo shirts and pants. If residents are uncooperative or the situation appears dangerous, they are trained to request officers to respond. 9 These students may, at their discretion, issue Disturbance Advisement Cards (DACs). SNAP and patrol both issue DACs, with SNAP alone issuing 588 DACs in 2024. Officer discretion is guided by Lexipol policy 430 and other training (see SNAP manual Section V: Noise Complaint Enforcement & Safety Expectations). 9 Complainants indicated that weekend parties can mean up to 100 or more students at one address and often continue after visits by police. SNAP students do not go to lettered fraternity houses; such visits are reserved for sworn officers. Responding officers can issue a citation for a party as either multiple citations at the same time or as additional citations if the problem persists. There was one unruly gathering citation during the St. Fratty's Day 2025 event, and 22 Unruly Gathering citations issued in 2024. Unruly Gathering citations are used for very large parties that meet defined criteria in the municipal code that cause significant disturbance to the neighborhood. 9 SLO Municipal Code 9.12.050 is specific about excessive noise. It provides a detailed list of prohibited acts between the hours of 10 p.m. and Various City Municipal Code sections are being conflated in these sentences. Sections 9.12.040, 9.12.050.A, and 9.12.050.B regulate different types of sound sources and are applied in different contexts, not all relevant to party noise situations. Page 11 of 27 7 a.m. While it does not specifically prohibit noise from parties, it does speak to the use of loudspeakers and other electronic devices, including: “radio, television set, phonograph, drum, musical instrument, or similar device which produces or reproduces sound…” 10 If found to be out of compliance, SLOPD may issue a warning or citation. Citations can be either criminal or administrative, but most often noise violations are citated administratively. 10 In 2023, using extensive citizen- generated data from a Cal Poly- generated report required by AB524, code enforcement started an investigation into the illegal fraternities. Based on the investigation, 30-40 Advisory Notices, and 22 Notice of Violations (NOVs) were sent to property owners. In addition, there have been 22 NOVs and 6 administrative citations issued since the 2023 investigation related to unpermitted fraternities or use permit violations. 10 At the time, Cal Poly and code enforcement were working together on the illegal fraternity issue. However, due to changes in policies, Cal Poly stopped assisting the city, stating privacy concerns, and revised their AB 524 report to remove some of the addresses that were previously provided in the document. Cal Poly has removed information about the location of parties from its public reports, which previously facilitated the City’s enforcement of its regulations. Outside of the AB 524 report, the City has requested the information directly from Cal Poly, but those requests have been denied. Page 12 of 27 11 Based on the SLOCGJ investigation, the number of illegal fraternities may be more than 40 locations currently operating in the city. In addition, citizens have reported that several Cal Poly recognized fraternities listed in AB524 have multiple illegal fraternity locations operating within the city: some with as many as 7 separate locations. Please clarify from what sources these numbers are derived and on what verified evidence they are based, keeping in mind the constitutional considerations/limitations noted below in response to report finding #3. 11-12 Code enforcement complaints are often received after business hours or the following day. The result is that they are limited in their ability to verify the code violation, as it is after the fact or violators are not easily identified. Party activities reported to police are documented and provided to code enforcement, and there is no barrier to the City using all of the information in the possession of either the Police Department or the Community Development Department to pursue enforcement. It is inaccurate to state the City cannot verify violations without sending code enforcement staff out on weekends or after hours; noise complaints received by emergency or non-emergency dispatch after hours are responded to by SLOPD and call logs and citations issued by the Police Department are evidence of that response. 13 The report also provides the address of each “affiliated chapter house” which AB 524 defines as those located on- campus or on land owned or leased by the fraternity or sorority. Education Code Section 66312 defines “chapter house” as “any residence located on or off campus that is owned by the institution of higher education but occupied by a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity, or any residence located on or off campus that is owned and occupied by the campus-recognized sorority or fraternity.” There is no definition of an “affiliated chapter house” in the Education Code. The Education Code’s definition of chapter house is confined to properties owned and occupied by a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity, or occupied by a campus-recognized sorority or fraternity and owned by the university. Page 13 of 27 13 Evidently, this means that of the 36 recognized fraternities and sororities, 20 either do not have a chapter house or are in chapter houses that are off- campus and not owned or leased by the fraternity or sorority and therefore do not meet the definition of an affiliated chapter house. Clarify whether “chapter house” as used here is meant to refer to “unaffiliated chapter houses,” and by what definition this is being applied. 13 Any of these chapter houses that hold fraternity activities such as meetings, rush events, or parties, are still required by the SLO municipal code to have a CUP. Clarify if a distinction is being made between affiliated and unaffiliated chapter houses. 13-14 Since Cal Poly is not required to provide the addresses of these recognized fraternities, the city has no easy way to verify the location to determine the reason that the fraternity does not have a CUP. This makes it difficult for the city to enforce the code. It is legally debatable whether the addresses should be published and/or disclosed or not, but it is true that since Cal Poly now declines to provide specific address information regarding locations of all fraternity/sorority sponsored events, this does impede the City’s enforcement efforts. 14 These CUPs were approved over an extended period of time by planning commissions with different members; the earliest is dated in 1971 and the latest in 2024. That may explain why additional conditions were imposed on some fraternities and sororities and not others. It may also have to do with specific characteristics of the individual parcel. The differences in the CUPs also reflect regulatory changes to the City Municipal Code that have been made to address issues that have arisen with the fraternities and sororities over time. This is the nature of any CUP and CUP process; it allows for adjustments over time to address emergent needs through the exercise of discretion, individual review, and application of conditions of approval that are tailored to the unique potential impacts of each location as it is reviewed. Page 14 of 27 14 The planning commission has the authority to enforce these conditions, add new conditions if the existing conditions are not met, and ultimately revoke a fraternity’s CUP. It is within the authority of the City’s Planning Commission to take the steps described, but these are part of a process that also includes notice and due process to the permit holder and property owner. CUPs cannot be revoked without due process to the permit holder, which holds a property right to the permit. 14 Citizens can also appeal for a use permit to be revoked or request that a permit not be approved. The current cost to make such an appeal is $2,583.46, (in 2017 the appeal fee was $281.00). A complainant noted that the cost to appeal discourages this practice. The cost described here is what a citizen would pay to appeal any decision of the Planning Commission immediately after a CUP is approved or denied. There is also a process that costs no money through which a member of the public can report potential CUP or zoning violations to the Community Development Director. Once investigated, City staff can bring substantiated violations before the Planning Commission for consideration without any cost incurred by the citizen. This process has led to the revocation of two CUPs this year, and several other CUPs are either scheduled proactively by the City for a future hearing or are being investigated based on violations of conditions. 14-15 While these appeal fees may be justifiable for major development projects that demand substantial city resources like legal reviews, public hearings, or environmental impact assessments, they place an undue burden on ordinary citizens. As stated above, a member of the public does not need to pay a fee to make the Community Development Department aware of a potential violation of a CUP, which, if verified, can lead to re-review of the permit by the Planning Commission, and potential revocation. The appeal fees apply to the granting (or denial) of a CUP. The setting of fees, including the appeal fees referred to here, follows an extensive study process, reporting by staff, and deliberation by City Council, with fees based specifically on a fraction of the cost of processing an appeal. 15, F1 Prior to 2025, the city failed to effectively provide a multi-pronged, cohesive approach to manage or shut down large unsanctioned, costly and unruly events such as St. Fratty’s Day. This created an unsafe environment, SLOPD had a robust plan in 2024, based on the size and actions of the 2023 event. The City must balance police response vs. expected crowd size, danger to the community and financial constraints. It is not operationally or financially feasible to call in officers from all over the state every year out because something might happen. The need must be articulated based on intelligence and past experience, and the 2023 Page 15 of 27 with increasing size of unruly crowds, property damage, injuries and public disturbances. event did not rise to the level of problems to create a state-wide staffing aid request in 2024. Each year’s staffing and tactical plan is prudent and appropriate based on previous events and current expected attendance. The San Luis Obispo Police Department has effectively planned for and staffed numerous large-scale, unpermitted events dating back decades, including the end of Mardi Gras and Poly Royal events. Those events were distinctly different as they were permitted, official events that turned problematic. St. Fratty’s day started organically, has never been permitted, and has slowly grown over the years, with the exception of the COVID-19 pandemic years, where participation sharply declined. Each year, the Police Department engaged in significant community outreach, including print material, directed communication through Cal Poly and Cuesta Colleges, radio ads, door to door knock and talks, met with community organizations including RQN, and authored several media releases, ahead of the unpermitted St. Fratty’s Day event. The City changed the Municipal Code multiple times to increase fines as a means to deter problematic behavior (the Safety Enhancement Zone was amended in 2010 to include Halloween and St. Patrick’s Day, then amended again in February 2024, expanding the Safety Enhancement Zone to include two weekends prior to St. Patrick’s Day to cover the likely dates for St. Fratty’s Day). Robust operational plans were developed each year, in collaboration with Cal Poly, to staff public safety personnel in a meaningful and effective way. St. Fratty’s Day is a particularly difficult event to police, as it consists of revelers walking up and down the sidewalk, with no destination in mind. Short of completely shutting down a neighborhood to all traffic, both foot and vehicular, there are few options police have for preventing what would normally be constitutionally protected activity: walking down a sidewalk in a neighborhood. To further complicate enforcement, many of the revelers Page 16 of 27 actually live in the very neighborhoods that would be closed and would have to be provided access to their homes. As the event grew in scale, so did the public safety response. 2020-2021 saw minimal St. Fratty’s Day activity due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was not until 2023 that any extended street closure occurred due to the size of the crowd in the neighborhood. As a result of the increased crowds, the Safety Enhancement Zone was expanded, along with other tactical operational planning to prevent another occurrence. As the crowds in 2024 grew even larger, the departmental staffing became no longer sufficient to safely keep the crowds out of the streets and neighborhoods, resulting in extensive planning for 2025. 2025 planning included working with Cal Poly on a task force that met for almost one full year prior to March 2025. Extensive outreach was conducted, and a request for mutual aid was sent to many agencies across the state. There were over 300 law enforcement personnel in town working the 2025 St. Fratty’s Day event, along with additional personnel at Cal Poly Campus to provide security for the campus dorms and the alternative concert event planned on campus. Officers assisted from as far away as San Francisco and Ventura to ensure enough law enforcement presence in the neighborhood. As a result, although some revelers attempted to go into the street in 2025, no intersections or streets were closed to traffic due to revelers, and the party was effectively shut down, before it started and without incident. For many years, the department has also utilized advanced technology such as drones, and mobile surveillance cameras, along with print materials, street signage and targeted outreach to problem houses in an effort to deter the event. Department leadership worked in collaboration with SCLC monthly and met with the IFC (Intra-Fraternity Council) to engage in productive conversation to gain compliance and warn of the fines and Page 17 of 27 administrative sanctions that could come with illegal behavior. SLOPD Leadership were guests on several radio shows in an effort to distribute the message of zero tolerance ahead of the unplanned, unpermitted event, and participated in town-hall style meetings on campus with Cal Poly leadership and other City officials. In summation, the department conducted an outreach campaign as extensive as possible, and employed law enforcement officers from across the state, including horse-mounted patrols, motorcycle patrols, bicycle patrols, foot patrols and mobile teams to effectively end any problems early and quickly. The department fully staffed an Operations Center to function as a command post, and in conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Office, created a Law Enforcement Campus near the event, for mobile booking and processing of arrestees. The combination of operational planning, use of technology and infrastructure, and the assistance from law enforcement partners from around the state, resulted in an extremely safe and trouble-free event. The crowd was not able to develop at any one location in the neighborhoods, and there were no reported cases of property damage or injuries. In short, 2025 was an extreme success in quelling the event, which was the culmination of years of iteration and planning. The City spent over $100,000 in overtime and equipment related to the event. This amount does not include all of the staff time of everyone who was working their normal shift, or all of the other agencies, who supplied their personnel as no-cost mutual-aid. The total cost of the St. Fratty’s Day response was likely in the $700,000-$800,000 range when accounting for all staff time associated with anyone working the event. 2025 was the result of process evolution built upon years of previous plans, lessons learned, and extensive personal relationships built with student, law enforcement, and neighborhood community members Page 18 of 27 resulting in a least-harm approach to preventing what could have been a highly dangerous event. Additionally, for many years, the City has engaged in extensive outreach and education each year with Cal Poly to elevate awareness of City codes and conduct expectations, as well as engaging in robust enforcement against individuals engaging in misconduct, as well as landlords whose tenants engage in repeat violations at the landlords’ rental premises. The City notes that it has continued enforcement of its landlord responsibility provisions for properties that host repeat code violations, notwithstanding ongoing landlord and tenant opposition and even in the face of threats of legal challenges. 15, F2 The city has not effectively engaged in working together with community stakeholders to find solutions for ongoing off-campus issues that negatively impact neighborhoods such as code enforcement, noise issues, trespassing, property damage, and unruly events. Neighborhood Wellness was a Major City Goal (MCG) from 2011-2017 and then an Other Important Objective (OIO) from 2017-2019. During that time, the Neighborhood Wellness Community Civility Working Group was established and the 90-page report produced. Working groups included neighbors from areas directly off campus, students, City staff and Cal Poly staff. SLOPD, City Administration, and elected representatives of the City Council frequently meet with RQN and participate in SCLC. The Neighborhood Wellness Community Civility Working Group report contained recommendations, many of which were adopted by the City. Prior to adoption of the MCG, the social host ordinance was adopted in 2009, stating that party hosts can be held responsible for underage drinking at their parties. In 2010, the City Council adopted amendments to the noise ordinance. Instead of multiple warnings, one warning is provided, then the house goes on the premise list for 9 months and if more complaints are received, and violations verified, citations are issued. The fine structure was changed to $350 - $1000 and landlord Page 19 of 27 citations were added for repeat offenders. A Cal Poly - City MOU was adopted giving Cal Poly Police administrative citation powers a mile off campus. Party registration was piloted in 2017 and has been going strong since. Stakeholder walking meetings were implemented in the neighborhoods led by Cal Poly to provide residents the opportunity to give feedback on problem locations, though the walking meetings were not revived after COVID. The unruly gathering (UG) ordinance was amended, improving the definition of what a UG is, and Start of School safety enhancement was added in 2015. The City did not implement the keg registration recommendation contained in the Working Group Report because students no longer use kegs like they did in the 90s, nor did the City implement SNAP ride-alongs because SNAP employees are not sworn police officers. Even after the MCG and OIO expired, extensive amendments were made in 2024 to the safety enhancement zones for Halloween and St. Patrick’s Day to include additional weekends of enforcement. Partnerships between the police department and Cal Poly expanded to include focused outreach to incoming students during SLO Days, presentations and outreach to Fraternity and Sorority Life (FSL) chapters, outreach to sports teams and coaching staff and participation in off-campus housing fairs. Annually, the Public Affairs Manager presents to all 5000+ incoming new students and about half of all FSL individual chapters covering city ordinances that most effect students living on and off campus. In 2017, Council approved a pilot party registration program which has since proven to be very successful in reducing noisy parties and improving student-age City resident understanding of how to socialize without being disruptive. In 2024, the St. Patrick’s Day and Halloween safety enhancement zones were amended by Council to include additional dates which provide the police department a longer span of enforcement to better address negative Page 20 of 27 behaviors in the neighborhoods. Extensive communications plans are created and implemented to provide information to the community about neighborhood related ordinances, with the plans including postcard mailings, radio commercials and PSAs, TV commercials, on and off campus presentations to student groups, noise violations notifications to property owners, posters and flyers throughout the community and electronic communication via police department social media channels including paid ads targeted to college-age residents of the City. Additionally, noise and unruly gathering information is provided weekly to Cal Poly to be addressed via the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities (OSRR). OSRR is also provided information on students who have been arrested for crimes in San Luis Obispo, such as suspected DUI, domestic violence, theft and assault. In addition, the City works extensively with Cal Poly on finding solutions for these issues. The SCLC is an additional venue for discussion, dialogue, and collaboration. The City is committed to ongoing engagement with a variety of community stakeholders related to neighborhood issues. More recently, City staff have participated in the following collaborative efforts:  January 10, 2024: City staff with Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the complaints received regarding Fraternities and Sororities. Page 21 of 27  April 10, 2024: Follow up meeting with Assistant Director of Fraternity & Sorority Life regarding City’s response to unpermitted fraternities.  April 16, 2024: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities  August 2024: Community Development Director met with Cal Poly leadership to discuss the issue of Fraternities/Sororities and land use requirements for houses.  January 12, 2025: Presentation to Greek Organization Leadership regarding City regulations and enforcement methods for Fraternities/Sororities  March 4, 2025: Meeting with City staff and Cal Poly Greek Life staff to discuss the ongoing issues regarding Fraternities and Sororities and upcoming “St. Fratty’s Day” event. In addition to these scheduled meetings, code enforcement staff have met with numerous fraternity members as part of several investigations into alleged unpermitted events. During field inspections and hand delivery of violation notices, residents were verbally provided information regarding applicable regulations. City staff have clearly stated to Cal Poly that staff are available to attend events to educate students on compliance with City regulations. The Police Department specifically has worked tirelessly over the past decade to address these issues, supported by dedicated staff, new City ordinances, and proven programs that have delivered undeniable positive results. Noise complaints in particular have steadily declined to their lowest recorded levels, while voluntary compliance continues to Page 22 of 27 increase. In 2010, Council adopted revisions to the City’s noise ordinance, improving the definitions, raising the fines for violations, and adding a provision to include landlord penalties for repeat violations at individual properties. Since the change in the ordinance, there has been a 50% reduction in noise complaints. Prior to 2010, the police department would receive on average 3000 noisy party complaints each year and the average is now around 1450. 15, F3 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. Along with the Cal Poly general enrollment numbers, participation in Greek life has also increased; with an increase in membership would understandably follow an increase in activity. The City enforces municipal code regulations that prohibit fraternity and sorority activity in R-1 and R-2 zones and behaviors that create neighborhood nuisances or otherwise violate City code, while balancing constitutionally protected rights of privacy and free association (specifically, keeping in mind that there are legal limits on a governmental entity’s ability to inquire into the personal relationships of persons living together in their private residences and to regulate the rights of such individuals to associate freely in their homes). The enforcement of these regulations is carried out on a complaint basis, consistent with most code enforcement issues. Since November 2023, the City has investigated over 103 complaints and opened 40 code enforcement cases related to fraternities without permits and violations of conditional use permits. In addition, the City proactively notified 33 suspected fraternity/sorority houses in R-1/R-2 zones that it is illegal to be a fraternity/sorority house in an R1/R2 zone through a courtesy notice. The City has proactively met with Cal Poly staff and students to provide education about compliance with zoning regulations so that Greek organizations can plan living arrangements accordingly, and so that students are aware that they will receive violations if they establish Page 23 of 27 fraternity/sorority houses in these zones. The City has also been attempting to obtain Greek event registration address information from Cal Poly in order to support enforcement efforts. There is no cited evidence to support what appears to be an individualized opinion that these neighborhoods are “almost unlivable” for residents and such value judgments presented as factual investigation or inquiry undermine the objectivity and credibility of the report’s analytical approach and conclusions. Cal Poly could substantially aid and enhance the effectiveness of the City’s prevention and enforcement efforts in addressing repeat or habitual misconduct by campus affiliated individuals and groups that occupy properties within the city through increased exchange of information regarding Greek event locations and through enhanced enforcement of its own student conduct measures. 15, F4 The city has failed to consistently enforce CUPs such as the requirements for an annual list of parties and events, notification to neighbors, and parking plans. Strict enforcement of these conditions would contribute to a reduction of the disturbances in the neighborhoods. The City enforces the provisions of CUPs as violations are reported and verified. In the last year, the City verified that 5 fraternities have violations of existing CUPs. This resulted in 3 hearings before the Planning Commission for revocation/revision of the CUPs in question, with additional hearings scheduled in upcoming months. In May 2025, the Planning Commission voted to revoke the CUPs for two fraternity houses due to violations of conditions of approval. 16, F5 The current planning appeal fee structure in SLO disproportionately impacts ordinary citizens, as the high costs create barriers for those raising concerns about community issues such as noise or safety. While these fees may be justifiable for large-scale As stated previously, the planning appeal fee described in the report is what a citizen would pay to appeal any decision of the Planning Commission. It costs nothing to report potential CUP or zoning violations to the Community Development Director. Once investigated, City staff would bring substantiated violations before the Planning Commission for consideration without any cost incurred by the citizen. This exact process has resulted in the re-review of several CUPs this year. Page 24 of 27 development appeals requiring additional city resources, they hinder equitable participation in local decision-making processes. It is an incredibly important distinction to make that citizens raising concerns about noise or safety is free. The appeal fee only applies to a decision on a CUP before the PC. In addition, the appeal fee structure was adopted by the City Council in 2024 after robust review of cost-of-service data presented in the associated fee study and report and following significant deliberation by the City Council regarding the fee amount. The Council carefully considered how much the fee should be subsidized in order to not discourage the involvement of ordinary citizens in the decision-making process. The fee is the same regardless of the status of the appealing party (whether a developer, city resident, non-city resident, etc.) and therefore does not disproportionately impact any specific party. The appeal fee is based on an analysis of the amount of time required to process an appeal, and, per City Council direction, the fee was set at a percentage of the full cost of processing an appeal in order to ensure it is not overly burdensome. 16, F6 The Grand Jury encountered a lack of cooperation from the San Luis Obispo City Police Department. While one sworn officer did participate in an interview, efforts to interview two additional sworn officers were unsuccessful. This unwillingness to engage hindered the Grand Jury’s ability to corroborate statements, obtain essential information, and maintain transparency in its oversight role. One of the City’s most knowledgeable persons on these topics is a non- sworn staff member and was interviewed for 90 minutes. The City provided its two most knowledgeable people (with the “one sworn Officer” being the Chief of Police) to be interviewed. No subpoenas were issued to Police staff. This is a false statement – The police department provided unimpeded and direct access to both the Chief of Police and the Public Affairs Manager, as well as written responses to multiple iterative series of questions, as well as providing documents with thousands of current and historical data points requested by the Grand Jury. Neither the City nor any particular City police department personnel was ever served with a subpoena for additional witnesses, documents, or data. The department Page 25 of 27 did decline further voluntary requests for additional interviews of department staff by the Grand Jury after complete access was already provided to the department’s Chief, the City Manager who supervises the Chief, and the civilian police department staff person who were best informed as to all relevant operations to speak most comprehensively about the issues the City understood were being investigated. Both agency representatives and the City Manager engaged thoroughly and exhaustively, responding to all questions submitted in person and in writing from the Grand Jury, on multiple occasions. The police department did not elect to “voluntarily” provide access to other shift working staff who have limited scopes of operational responsibility or, at best, incomplete historical information or who were themselves unable to speak with completeness or accuracy about current planning efforts for what was at the time the upcoming 2025 St. Patrick’s Day Celebration. The finding misrepresents the transparency and cooperation the police department and the City as a whole extended to the Grand Jury to complete the most accurate and comprehensive report possible on this dangerous and nuisance event for our community. The department has been extremely proactive in combatting this event and in providing critical information to the Grand Jury, Cal Poly, the City Council, and our community to reduce and ultimately prevent the dangerous street party, which was in fact accomplished this year, exceeding all expectations. 17, R6 The SLO City Manager and the Planning Commission should move toward adopting more uniform conditions for CUP’s [sic] and enforcement of existing requirements. As CUPs come in for re-review staff are ensuring that they are as consistent as possible with the new set of standard conditions the City has created, with uniform conditions being updated as needed. Setting constraints like a uniform set of conditions on the exercise of discretion diminishes the usefulness of the review process to address specific needs over time or for unique circumstances that may exist at specific properties or with particular groups or organizations. Page 26 of 27 17, R7 The SLOCGJ recommends that the SLO City Manager create formal guidelines and provide training outlining how the SLO City Police Department will respond to requests from the SLOCGJ and other oversite bodies. Grand jury requests vary in nature and scope and, by their nature, do not lend themselves to a uniform approach in each instance. The Police Chief is supervised by and accountable to the City Manager and the City Manager has and will continue to review and provide appropriate oversight and direction to her staff in providing staff responses, consulting with the City Attorney as needed. In the event a particular request directed to the police department demanded confidentiality from the City Manager, the City Attorney’s Office would review and advise the Department’s response and support communication to the City Council. 24-26 Bibliography Links are to general websites and not specific reference materials. No specific citations exist in the report. Some of the links do not appear to actually contain the information that they are being relied upon to support in the report. In addition to these specific factual corrections offered in the table above, we believe the overall tone of the report could be improved by removing language (e.g. comparing City zoning to the Twilight Zone television show) which trivializes both the serious issues for the neighborhoods and the tremendous ongoing resource investments made (past and present) by the City to address those concerns. The report also suffers from the recurring use of ambiguous phrases and references stated as facts, which do not seem to be connected to factual support or contextual or temporal data points, thereby diminishing the objectivity, credibility, and impact of the conclusions in the report. Some examples are: • “a quaint town with a rich history” • “once-quiet residential areas” • “residents—students, families, and long-time locals” • “a range of challenges for the surrounding neighborhoods” • “neighborhood integrity” Page 27 of 27 • “fully enforced” • “this situation remains - to this date - unabated” • “the affected area” • “warrant a police citation” • “a real time solution” The City recommends replacing those phrases with more precise language or providing the noted factual, temporal, or contextual support for the statements. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these clarifications, recommendations, and suggestions for the report before it is released to the public. We fully support the effort to provide the public with a complete and accurate picture of the issues raised in the complaints that gave rise to this report, and we hope our recommendations assist in that effort. 445 From:McDonald, Whitney Sent:Friday, June 27, 2025 4:41 PM To:Collins, Scott; Hermann, Greg; Dietrick, Christine Subject:Weekly Update Attachments:Exciting Update: SLOMA Expansion Project BCC: Mayor and Council Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. While it was a full week of various events and important work, I have just a handful of updates to pass along at its conclusion:  3CE – As you may have seen reported in The Tribune this week, Yvonne Kimball is no longer the City Manager in Morro Bay as of Wednesday. I informed Rob Shaw of this change and let him know that I will be prepared to attend future 3CE Operations Board meetings as the identified alternate to Yvonne. He and I have a meeting scheduled later in July to ensure I am up to speed on a few items that will be presented to the Operations Board in August, which I will plan to attend. Once Morro Bay appoints an Interim City Manager, I will reach out to that person to discuss whether Morro Bay is open to allowing me to retain the Operations Board seat for the remainder of the term or at least until they appoint a new permanent City Manager.  Libertine Brewery – This afternoon, you received an email from residents who live near Libertine regarding the recent approval of a modification to Libertine’s use permit. Community Development Department staff will be sending a follow up email to you all with some additional information regarding the process used for this permit and options available to address the request related to the appeal fee. Stay tuned for more information early next week.  Planning Commission Action – On Wednesday evening, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to revoke another fraternity CUP, this one for Delta Upsilon. This is the third fraternity CUP revoked by the Planning Commission in the past couple of months, with a fourth CUP being modified after a review hearing. We have received one appeal so far from Delta Chi. KSBY has reported on these actions, with a brief mention of the Grand Jury report which also came up during the Planning Commission meeting. https://www.ksby.com/san-luis- obispo/another-cal-poly-fraternity-has-conditional-use-permit-revoked In addition to the work that we will undertake to respond to the Grand Jury report, staff has a series of meetings scheduled with Cal Poly leadership this summer to discuss ways that we can work together to address these issues.  SLOMA Expansion – Earlier this week, staff received an email from SLOMA (attached) regarding their plans to expand into the space that includes The Network and Creeky Tiki, which I believe is still a rather closely held plan that is not being broadly shared at this time. Community Development Department staff are working with SLOMA on their questions regarding processing of permits for the façade improvements, but I wanted to pass along the email so that you all have the same information regarding this important project for our downtown.  40 Prado Usage Data for 6/16 to 6/22 - Note: CAPSLO included a new category for ‘Hotel/Motel Stay’ data, however no motel stays were recorded last week due to all Hotel Voucher funds being expended for the current fiscal year. 40 Prado Shelter Programs Data 6/16-6/22 Program Name Average Clients Served Access Center 156.71 Total for Sheltering Programs Housing Focused Shelter Program (HFSP) 45.14 Prado Shelter - Night-by-Night Shelter Beds (NbN) 32.57 446 Family Shelter Nights (Total individuals, including children) 14.86 Recuperative Care (RCP) 10.43 Safe Parking Attendance 8.57 Warming Center (n=0) 0.00 Overflow (n=7) 2.71 Hotel/Motel Stay (n=0) 0.00 Unique Clients Served (Average/Total) 179/ 301 Max Capacity Overview  Total Shelter Beds (HFSP / NBN / RCP / Family Shelter) – 129 o Men’s Dorm – 56 o Women’s Dorm – 35 o Family Rooms – 29 o Recuperative Care Program (RCP) – 9  Safe Parking – 12  Warming Center – 40  Upcoming Meetings and Events of Note: o June 30 – Throop Park Monday Meet-Up o July 2 – This will be Deputy Chief Fred Mickel’s last day with the City as he retires after 25 years of service in San Luis Obispo and 30 years in law enforcement. We are so incredibly grateful for his service and leadership and will miss him greatly , but we are so excited for this next phase of life 뇤눎눐눑눒눏, which will include a move to Idaho with this wife Arlene and their noodle (?) (Newfoundland Poodle) Finn. o July 3 – Ride along with the Fire Department o July 4 - Holiday o July 22-August 3 Vacation – Our family is heading to Montreal and Quebec City for vacation, leaving on a late evening flight out of San Francisco on July 22nd and returning home late on August 1st. Both Scott and Greg will be here in my absence, with Scott stepping in as Acting City Manager. I hope everyone has a wonderful weekend and enjoys the upcoming bonus no-meeting week! All the best, Whitney Whitney McDonald pronouns (she/hers) City Manager City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E WMcDonal@slocity.org T 805.781.7114 C 805.550.8349 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 448 From:Holcomb, Kelly Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 3:54 PM To:City_Attorney Subject:RE: 6/26/25 News Articles Seriously? SLOPD didn’t respond because the City gave her a single response on behalf of everyone  Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 3:44 PM To: City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Subject: 6/26/25 News Articles Article regarding the Emery v. City et. al lawsuit: https://www.newtimesslo.com/news/slo-county-city-and-caltrans-sued-by-reno-bicyclist-for-stenner-creek-road- accident-16881854 Articles regarding the grand jury report: https://www.newtimesslo.com/opinion/double-secret-probation-16881857 https://www.newtimesslo.com/news/grand-jury-report-finds-slo-failed-to-handle-illegal-frat-parties-16881846 Article regarding Delta Upsilon’s CUP revoked (mentions grand jury report as well): https://www.ksby.com/san-luis-obispo/another-cal-poly-fraternity-has-conditional-use-permit-revoked Sarah Zion pronouns she/her/hers 449 Legal Assistant II City Attorney's Office 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E szion@slocity.org T 805.783.7856 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. 450 From:Zion, Sarah Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 3:44 PM To:City_Attorney Subject:6/26/25 News Articles Article regarding the Emery v. City et. al lawsuit: https://www.newtimesslo.com/news/slo-county-city-and-caltrans-sued-by-reno-bicyclist-for-stenner-creek-road- accident-16881854 Articles regarding the grand jury report: https://www.newtimesslo.com/opinion/double-secret-probation-16881857 https://www.newtimesslo.com/news/grand-jury-report-finds-slo-failed-to-handle-illegal-frat-parties-16881846 Article regarding Delta Upsilon’s CUP revoked (mentions grand jury report as well): https://www.ksby.com/san-luis-obispo/another-cal-poly-fraternity-has-conditional-use-permit-revoked Sarah Zion pronouns she/her/hers Legal Assistant II City Attorney's Office 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E szion@slocity.org T 805.783.7856 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. 451 From: Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 3:29 PM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:Re: Fraternity at 1271-1275 Stafford Thank you for your response. On Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 3:17 PM Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: I received your email and voicemail with your concerns about 1271-1275 Stafford and forwarded it along to the Code Enforcement Division. I am sorry to hear about your experiences with your neighbors. In regards to the accumulation of trash on the site – there have been several code enforcement actions related to this in the past year or so. Most recently, Code enforcement staff sent a notice of violation on May 1 and a citation because of continued non-compliance in early June. This case is still open and code enforcement is still actively working to attempt to gain compliance from the property owner/occupants to comply with the Code. We will continue to visit the site and make contact with the owner/occupants until the issue is addressed. In regards to the suspected Fraternity House – you are correct, there cannot be a fraternity house in this zone. I have forwarded your complaint on to code enforcement for investigation. If evidence exists that a fraternity house is operating at the site, then a notice of violation will be issued. If not, we will still reach out to the property owner to inform them of the zoning code limitations on Greek houses and the consequences of operating a fraternity in an R-1 zone. Thank you, and please continue to report issues as they arise to SLO Code Enforcement. We will investigate all complaints we receive and work to gain compliance with City codes and regulations, Timmi Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org 452 T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 453 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 3:17 PM To: Subject:Fraternity at 1271-1275 Stafford I received your email and voicemail with your concerns about 1271-1275 Stafford and forwarded it along to the Code Enforcement Division. I am sorry to hear about your experiences with your neighbors. In regards to the accumulation of trash on the site – there have been several code enforcement actions related to this in the past year or so. Most recently, Code enforcement staff sent a notice of violation on May 1 and a citation because of continued non-compliance in early June. This case is still open and code enforcement is still actively working to attempt to gain compliance from the property owner/occupants to comply with the Code. We will continue to visit the site and make contact with the owner/occupants until the issue is addressed. In regards to the suspected Fraternity House – you are correct, there cannot be a fraternity house in this zone. I have forwarded your complaint on to code enforcement for investigation. If evidence exists that a fraternity house is operating at the site, then a notice of violation will be issued. If not, we will still reach out to the property owner to inform them of the zoning code limitations on Greek houses and the consequences of operating a fraternity in an R-1 zone. Thank you, and please continue to report issues as they arise to SLO Code Enforcement. We will investigate all complaints we receive and work to gain compliance with City codes and regulations, Timmi 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 454 From:Dietrick, Christine Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 2:30 PM To:Szentesi, Whit; McDonald, Whitney Cc:Hermann, Greg; Scott, Rick; Wallace, Christine; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:RE: Media request: New Times SLO My comments and suggestions are in, thx! From: Szentesi, Whit <wszentes@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 4:02 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO Importance: High Hi team, Here is a draft communications plan for your review: Draft_Comms Plan_Grand Jury Report Town Gown.docx To make sure we’re all on the same page and agree with this approach, I’ll set up a Teams meeting for us all to review and discuss it together. Sound good? Thanks, Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 11:26 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Media request: New Times SLO Importance: High FYI, the response below has been sent to Bulbul. Whitney, I’m happy to also send this statement via BCC to the City Council. Or would you prefer to do that? Greg and I are discussing next steps and working on a communications plan for how we can move forward to ensure that the City’s perspective and accurate information are made publicly available. Thanks, 455 Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 11:23 AM To: Bulbul Rajagopal <brajagopal@newtimesslo.com> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO Hi Bulbul, Here is the City’s statement in response to your questions below: The City is aware of the Grand Jury’s recent report and will be providing a detailed response within the required 90-day period. The City has fully cooperated with the Grand Jury with senior staff from multiple departments (including the Police Chief, Police Department Public Affairs Manager, Community Development Director, Code Enforcement staff, City Manager, and Council Members) testifying before the Grand Jury in addition to providing significant amounts of information in response to requests. We are concerned with both the factual inaccuracies (see the attached, which was also sent to the Grand Jury on June 20, 2025) and conclusions drawn in the report. It’s important to know that the City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of innovative approaches to addressing neighborhood wellness and we will continue to work with our community to maintain and improve our neighborhoods. This requires everyone to do their part, work together, and abide by the laws our community has in place. Our balanced approach includes education, collaboration, and law enforcement and we are proud to have a demonstrated history of using constructive feedback to identify areas of concern and respond to issues as they arise. More details about our response to the Grand Jury report will be made available soon. It’s my understanding that you sent the same questions to several staff members and all City Council members. Please note that this statement is intended to provide our collective response on behalf of the City. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to reach out to me directly. My cell phone number is (805) 440- 5446 and you can also send any questions or requests for information at communications@slocity.org. Thanks, Whit From: Bulbul Rajagopal <brajagopal@newtimesslo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 11:10 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Media request: New Times SLO Hi Whitney, I hope you're doing well. I'm working on a story about the Grand Jury report about the city's handling of frat parties in neighborhoods. I have a few questions about its findings and recommendations. 456 1. Are you prepared to work on the Grand Jury's recommendations to identify illegal frats, adopt more uniform conditions for CUPs, and create more formal guidelines on how SLOPD should respond to the jury and other oversight bodies? 2. The report also alleged that SLOPD didn't cooperate with the Grand Jury. Have you addressed this with the Police Chief? If so, what was the response? 3. Do you agree with the jury's six findings that the city has failed to adequately address the issue of unsanctioned and noisy frat parties? 4. Please feel free to include any other comments about the Grand Jury report. My deadline for this story is tomorrow at 11 am. I appreciate any time you can dedicate to my request. Best, Bulbul ––––– Bulbul Rajagopal (she/her) Staff Writer New Times Media Group PRINT · DIGITAL · MOBILE · TICKETING NEW TIMES San Luis Obispo County's News & Entertainment Weekly San Luis Obispo | (805) 592-0412 | www.NewTimesSLO.com SUN Northern Santa Barbara County's News & Entertainment Weekly Santa Maria | (805) 347-1968 | www.SantaMariaSun.com MY805TIX Your Local Ticketing Solution 457 From:James, Dillon Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 2:24 PM To:Courtney Leigh Kienow Subject:Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, Sounds good—invite coming shortly. Could you confirm a good meeting location on campus? First meeting will be at City Hall. Thanks! Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 2:21 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting September 3rd at 3pm is the winner! Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:36 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting For the second meeting, here's when Whitney, Scott, Greg, and Timmi could meet next:  Monday, August 18, 9am or 10am  Wednesday, August 20, 4pm  Tuesday, August 26, 3pm or 4pm  Wednesday, September 3, 3pm We are about to enter the vacation madness season, hence the scattered availability on our end. Dillon James pronouns he/him/his 458 Administration Executive Assistant City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:31 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting That’s it! Thanks Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:30 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting You've got it. Confirming the CP attendees are:  You  Jo Campbell  Joy Pederson  Jason Mockford  Terrance Leshae Harris Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:27 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting 459 Please remove Elizabeth and add Terrance Leshae Harris tharris@calpoly.edu from the meeting invite. Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:25 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, Can you confirm a good meeting location for both of these? Or were you thinking of holding on at City Hall, one on- campus? Thanks again. Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:24 PM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Yes – let’s do that Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 1:20 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>, Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, This has been delayed because we have a scheduling conflict with the second meeting and I'm looking at a few options. If you'd like, I can send out an invitation for the first meeting, and you and I can separately connect to find another good date/time for the second meeting. Would that work for you? 460 Thanks! Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… The linked image cannot be displayed. T… Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 12:59 PM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi Dillon, Our team hasn’t seen these meetings on the calendar yet. Can you please send an invitation out? Courtney From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 at 10:28 AM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>, James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Greek Life Meeting Whoops! Thanks and sounds good. Greg From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:49 AM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting We were hoping for two meetings… Timmi and anyone else you think is relevant to the conversation is welcome. Thanks! Courtney From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 at 9:32 AM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>, James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> 461 Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Greek Life Meeting Thanks, all. Let’s do the earlier date if possible. Can Timmi attend as well? Greg From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 9:22 AM To: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Yes please – do you have a room we can meet in or should we reserve a room at Cal Poly? In addition to myself, can you please invite: Jo Campbell jcampb33@calpoly.edu; Joy M. Pedersen jmpeders@calpoly.edu; Jason Mockford jmockfor@calpoly.edu; Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola eaielloc@calpoly.edu Courtney From: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 at 5:37 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>, Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Greek Life Meeting Hi all, It may take a bit of reshuffling of some internal meetings, but as of right now, it looks like everyone on this thread should be able to make the following two options:  July 16th, 2:00-3:00pm  July 31st, 10:00-11:00am Let me know if I should hold both of these times for everyone. Thank you! Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 5:28 PM To: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Cc: James, Dillon <djames@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Greek Life Meeting Hi Courtney, 462 Thanks for reaching out and my apologies for the delay. I just needed to connect with folks on the City side. The meeting should include Whitney, Scott, Timmi and myself. I’m looping in Dylan from our team to compare schedules and get something on calendars. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. Greg From: Courtney Leigh Kienow <ckienow@calpoly.edu> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 4:02 PM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: Greek Life Meeting Hi Greg, Thank you for the brainstorm earlier on next steps in partnership around fraternities and sororities in our neighborhoods and CUPs. I know I took advantage of a call on a completely different topic! 뇤눎눐눑눒눏 Looping in Scott since CDD is one of his departments. I’d like to set up two meetings over the summer where staff on this issue from both institutions can come together and continue the conversation about creative solutions/ideas. These have been the participants in these meetings in the past on our end: Courtney Kienow Jo Campbell Joy Pedersen – new to meetings Jason Mockford Elizabeth Aiello-Coppola We are all available on the following dates/times: June 18th 8:30-9:45 July 16th 2-3pm July 23rd 9-10:15am July 31st 10-11am August 6th 9-11am I know Scott attended the last one and you’ve attended some of the ones in the past. Please let me know if two of these options can work for the appropriate members of your team. Warmly, Courtney Courtney Kienow pronouns she/hers (why is this important?) Director of Community Relations and Economic Development Office of the President Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA _____ office 805-756-6000 direct 805-756-6098 www.calpoly.edu 463 464 From:Dietrick, Christine Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 12:50 PM To:Szentesi, Whit; McDonald, Whitney Cc:Hermann, Greg; Scott, Rick; Wallace, Christine; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:RE: Media request: New Times SLO Yup, undigested reiteration of misinformation, but boring and innocuous on the whole뇤눎눐눑눒눏 From: Szentesi, Whit <wszentes@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 10:42 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO I’m sure you all saw this: https://www.newtimesslo.com/news/grand-jury-report-finds-slo-failed-to-handle-illegal-frat- parties-16881846 Plus, the Shredder: https://www.newtimesslo.com/opinion/double-secret-probation-16881857 Thanks, Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 4:02 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO Importance: High Hi team, Here is a draft communications plan for your review: Draft_Comms Plan_Grand Jury Report Town Gown.docx To make sure we’re all on the same page and agree with this approach, I’ll set up a Teams meeting for us all to review and discuss it together. Sound good? Thanks, Whit 465 Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 11:26 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Media request: New Times SLO Importance: High FYI, the response below has been sent to Bulbul. Whitney, I’m happy to also send this statement via BCC to the City Council. Or would you prefer to do that? Greg and I are discussing next steps and working on a communications plan for how we can move forward to ensure that the City’s perspective and accurate information are made publicly available. Thanks, Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 11:23 AM To: Bulbul Rajagopal <brajagopal@newtimesslo.com> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO Hi Bulbul, Here is the City’s statement in response to your questions below: The City is aware of the Grand Jury’s recent report and will be providing a detailed response within the required 90-day period. The City has fully cooperated with the Grand Jury with senior staff from multiple departments (including the Police Chief, Police Department Public Affairs Manager, Community Development Director, Code Enforcement staff, City Manager, and Council Members) testifying before the Grand Jury in addition to providing significant amounts of information in response to requests. We are concerned with both the factual inaccuracies (see the attached, which was also sent to the Grand Jury on June 20, 2025) and conclusions drawn in the report. It’s important to know that the City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of innovative approaches to addressing neighborhood wellness and we will continue to work with our community to maintain and improve our neighborhoods. This requires everyone to do their part, work together, and abide by the laws our community has in place. Our balanced approach includes education, collaboration, and law 466 enforcement and we are proud to have a demonstrated history of using constructive feedback to identify areas of concern and respond to issues as they arise. More details about our response to the Grand Jury report will be made available soon. It’s my understanding that you sent the same questions to several staff members and all City Council members. Please note that this statement is intended to provide our collective response on behalf of the City. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to reach out to me directly. My cell phone number is (805) 440- 5446 and you can also send any questions or requests for information at communications@slocity.org. Thanks, Whit From: Bulbul Rajagopal <brajagopal@newtimesslo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 11:10 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Media request: New Times SLO Hi Whitney, I hope you're doing well. I'm working on a story about the Grand Jury report about the city's handling of frat parties in neighborhoods. I have a few questions about its findings and recommendations. 1. Are you prepared to work on the Grand Jury's recommendations to identify illegal frats, adopt more uniform conditions for CUPs, and create more formal guidelines on how SLOPD should respond to the jury and other oversight bodies? 2. The report also alleged that SLOPD didn't cooperate with the Grand Jury. Have you addressed this with the Police Chief? If so, what was the response? 3. Do you agree with the jury's six findings that the city has failed to adequately address the issue of unsanctioned and noisy frat parties? 4. Please feel free to include any other comments about the Grand Jury report. My deadline for this story is tomorrow at 11 am. I appreciate any time you can dedicate to my request. Best, Bulbul ––––– Bulbul Rajagopal (she/her) Staff Writer New Times Media Group PRINT · DIGITAL · MOBILE · TICKETING NEW TIMES San Luis Obispo County's News & Entertainment Weekly San Luis Obispo | (805) 592-0412 | www.NewTimesSLO.com SUN Northern Santa Barbara County's News & Entertainment Weekly Santa Maria | (805) 347-1968 | www.SantaMariaSun.com MY805TIX Your Local Ticketing Solution 467 From:Christiansen, Lindsay Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 12:28 PM To:Szentesi, Whit Subject:RE: Media request: New Times SLO Hi Whit- Yes, I will do that now. Do these folks know this meeting is coming? Lindsay Christiansen Administrative Assistant III Confidential lchristi@slocity.org 805.783.7836 From: Szentesi, Whit <wszentes@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 11:30 AM To: Christiansen, Lindsay <lchristi@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Media request: New Times SLO Hey Lindsay, can you help me find about 30-40 minutes next week for a meeting in either Council Hearing or Conference Room 6? If those rooms are not available, a Teams meeting is fine. Everyone included on the email below should be invited. Thanks, Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 10:42 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO I’m sure you all saw this: https://www.newtimesslo.com/news/grand-jury-report-finds-slo-failed-to-handle-illegal-frat- parties-16881846 Plus, the Shredder: https://www.newtimesslo.com/opinion/double-secret-probation-16881857 Thanks, Whit 468 Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 4:02 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO Importance: High Hi team, Here is a draft communications plan for your review: Draft_Comms Plan_Grand Jury Report Town Gown.docx To make sure we’re all on the same page and agree with this approach, I’ll set up a Teams meeting for us all to review and discuss it together. Sound good? Thanks, Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 11:26 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Media request: New Times SLO Importance: High FYI, the response below has been sent to Bulbul. Whitney, I’m happy to also send this statement via BCC to the City Council. Or would you prefer to do that? Greg and I are discussing next steps and working on a communications plan for how we can move forward to ensure that the City’s perspective and accurate information are made publicly available. Thanks, Whit 469 Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 11:23 AM To: Bulbul Rajagopal <brajagopal@newtimesslo.com> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO Hi Bulbul, Here is the City’s statement in response to your questions below: The City is aware of the Grand Jury’s recent report and will be providing a detailed response within the required 90-day period. The City has fully cooperated with the Grand Jury with senior staff from multiple departments (including the Police Chief, Police Department Public Affairs Manager, Community Development Director, Code Enforcement staff, City Manager, and Council Members) testifying before the Grand Jury in addition to providing significant amounts of information in response to requests. We are concerned with both the factual inaccuracies (see the attached, which was also sent to the Grand Jury on June 20, 2025) and conclusions drawn in the report. It’s important to know that the City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of innovative approaches to addressing neighborhood wellness and we will continue to work with our community to maintain and improve our neighborhoods. This requires everyone to do their part, work together, and abide by the laws our community has in place. Our balanced approach includes education, collaboration, and law enforcement and we are proud to have a demonstrated history of using constructive feedback to identify areas of concern and respond to issues as they arise. More details about our response to the Grand Jury report will be made available soon. It’s my understanding that you sent the same questions to several staff members and all City Council members. Please note that this statement is intended to provide our collective response on behalf of the City. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to reach out to me directly. My cell phone number is (805) 440- 5446 and you can also send any questions or requests for information at communications@slocity.org. Thanks, Whit From: Bulbul Rajagopal <brajagopal@newtimesslo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 11:10 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Media request: New Times SLO Hi Whitney, I hope you're doing well. I'm working on a story about the Grand Jury report about the city's handling of frat parties in neighborhoods. I have a few questions about its findings and recommendations. 1. Are you prepared to work on the Grand Jury's recommendations to identify illegal frats, adopt more uniform conditions for CUPs, and create more formal guidelines on how SLOPD should respond to the jury and other oversight bodies? 470 2. The report also alleged that SLOPD didn't cooperate with the Grand Jury. Have you addressed this with the Police Chief? If so, what was the response? 3. Do you agree with the jury's six findings that the city has failed to adequately address the issue of unsanctioned and noisy frat parties? 4. Please feel free to include any other comments about the Grand Jury report. My deadline for this story is tomorrow at 11 am. I appreciate any time you can dedicate to my request. Best, Bulbul ––––– Bulbul Rajagopal (she/her) Staff Writer New Times Media Group PRINT · DIGITAL · MOBILE · TICKETING NEW TIMES San Luis Obispo County's News & Entertainment Weekly San Luis Obispo | (805) 592-0412 | www.NewTimesSLO.com SUN Northern Santa Barbara County's News & Entertainment Weekly Santa Maria | (805) 347-1968 | www.SantaMariaSun.com MY805TIX Your Local Ticketing Solution 471 From:Szentesi, Whit Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 11:30 AM To:Christiansen, Lindsay Subject:FW: Media request: New Times SLO Hey Lindsay, can you help me find about 30-40 minutes next week for a meeting in either Council Hearing or Conference Room 6? If those rooms are not available, a Teams meeting is fine. Everyone included on the email below should be invited. Thanks, Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 10:42 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO I’m sure you all saw this: https://www.newtimesslo.com/news/grand-jury-report-finds-slo-failed-to-handle-illegal-frat- parties-16881846 Plus, the Shredder: https://www.newtimesslo.com/opinion/double-secret-probation-16881857 Thanks, Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 4:02 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; 472 Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO Importance: High Hi team, Here is a draft communications plan for your review: Draft_Comms Plan_Grand Jury Report Town Gown.docx To make sure we’re all on the same page and agree with this approach, I’ll set up a Teams meeting for us all to review and discuss it together. Sound good? Thanks, Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 11:26 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Media request: New Times SLO Importance: High FYI, the response below has been sent to Bulbul. Whitney, I’m happy to also send this statement via BCC to the City Council. Or would you prefer to do that? Greg and I are discussing next steps and working on a communications plan for how we can move forward to ensure that the City’s perspective and accurate information are made publicly available. Thanks, Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 11:23 AM To: Bulbul Rajagopal <brajagopal@newtimesslo.com> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO 473 Hi Bulbul, Here is the City’s statement in response to your questions below: The City is aware of the Grand Jury’s recent report and will be providing a detailed response within the required 90-day period. The City has fully cooperated with the Grand Jury with senior staff from multiple departments (including the Police Chief, Police Department Public Affairs Manager, Community Development Director, Code Enforcement staff, City Manager, and Council Members) testifying before the Grand Jury in addition to providing significant amounts of information in response to requests. We are concerned with both the factual inaccuracies (see the attached, which was also sent to the Grand Jury on June 20, 2025) and conclusions drawn in the report. It’s important to know that the City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of innovative approaches to addressing neighborhood wellness and we will continue to work with our community to maintain and improve our neighborhoods. This requires everyone to do their part, work together, and abide by the laws our community has in place. Our balanced approach includes education, collaboration, and law enforcement and we are proud to have a demonstrated history of using constructive feedback to identify areas of concern and respond to issues as they arise. More details about our response to the Grand Jury report will be made available soon. It’s my understanding that you sent the same questions to several staff members and all City Council members. Please note that this statement is intended to provide our collective response on behalf of the City. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to reach out to me directly. My cell phone number is (805) 440- 5446 and you can also send any questions or requests for information at communications@slocity.org. Thanks, Whit From: Bulbul Rajagopal <brajagopal@newtimesslo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 11:10 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Media request: New Times SLO Hi Whitney, I hope you're doing well. I'm working on a story about the Grand Jury report about the city's handling of frat parties in neighborhoods. I have a few questions about its findings and recommendations. 1. Are you prepared to work on the Grand Jury's recommendations to identify illegal frats, adopt more uniform conditions for CUPs, and create more formal guidelines on how SLOPD should respond to the jury and other oversight bodies? 2. The report also alleged that SLOPD didn't cooperate with the Grand Jury. Have you addressed this with the Police Chief? If so, what was the response? 3. Do you agree with the jury's six findings that the city has failed to adequately address the issue of unsanctioned and noisy frat parties? 4. Please feel free to include any other comments about the Grand Jury report. My deadline for this story is tomorrow at 11 am. I appreciate any time you can dedicate to my request. Best, Bulbul ––––– Bulbul Rajagopal (she/her) Staff Writer 474 New Times Media Group PRINT · DIGITAL · MOBILE · TICKETING NEW TIMES San Luis Obispo County's News & Entertainment Weekly San Luis Obispo | (805) 592-0412 | www.NewTimesSLO.com SUN Northern Santa Barbara County's News & Entertainment Weekly Santa Maria | (805) 347-1968 | www.SantaMariaSun.com MY805TIX Your Local Ticketing Solution 475 From:Wallace, Christine Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 10:44 AM To:Szentesi, Whit Subject:RE: Media request: New Times SLO Yep. A real treat. From: Szentesi, Whit <wszentes@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 10:42 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO I’m sure you all saw this: https://www.newtimesslo.com/news/grand-jury-report-finds-slo-failed-to-handle-illegal-frat- parties-16881846 Plus, the Shredder: https://www.newtimesslo.com/opinion/double-secret-probation-16881857 Thanks, Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 4:02 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO Importance: High Hi team, Here is a draft communications plan for your review: Draft_Comms Plan_Grand Jury Report Town Gown.docx To make sure we’re all on the same page and agree with this approach, I’ll set up a Teams meeting for us all to review and discuss it together. Sound good? Thanks, Whit 476 Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 11:26 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Media request: New Times SLO Importance: High FYI, the response below has been sent to Bulbul. Whitney, I’m happy to also send this statement via BCC to the City Council. Or would you prefer to do that? Greg and I are discussing next steps and working on a communications plan for how we can move forward to ensure that the City’s perspective and accurate information are made publicly available. Thanks, Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 11:23 AM To: Bulbul Rajagopal <brajagopal@newtimesslo.com> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO Hi Bulbul, Here is the City’s statement in response to your questions below: The City is aware of the Grand Jury’s recent report and will be providing a detailed response within the required 90-day period. The City has fully cooperated with the Grand Jury with senior staff from multiple departments (including the Police Chief, Police Department Public Affairs Manager, Community Development Director, Code Enforcement staff, City Manager, and Council Members) testifying before the Grand Jury in addition to providing significant amounts of information in response to requests. We are concerned with both the factual inaccuracies (see the attached, which was also sent to the Grand Jury on June 20, 2025) and conclusions drawn in the report. It’s important to know that the City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of innovative approaches to addressing neighborhood wellness and we will continue to work with our community to maintain and improve our neighborhoods. This requires everyone to do their part, work together, and abide by the laws our community has in place. Our balanced approach includes education, collaboration, and law 477 enforcement and we are proud to have a demonstrated history of using constructive feedback to identify areas of concern and respond to issues as they arise. More details about our response to the Grand Jury report will be made available soon. It’s my understanding that you sent the same questions to several staff members and all City Council members. Please note that this statement is intended to provide our collective response on behalf of the City. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to reach out to me directly. My cell phone number is (805) 440- 5446 and you can also send any questions or requests for information at communications@slocity.org. Thanks, Whit From: Bulbul Rajagopal <brajagopal@newtimesslo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 11:10 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Media request: New Times SLO Hi Whitney, I hope you're doing well. I'm working on a story about the Grand Jury report about the city's handling of frat parties in neighborhoods. I have a few questions about its findings and recommendations. 1. Are you prepared to work on the Grand Jury's recommendations to identify illegal frats, adopt more uniform conditions for CUPs, and create more formal guidelines on how SLOPD should respond to the jury and other oversight bodies? 2. The report also alleged that SLOPD didn't cooperate with the Grand Jury. Have you addressed this with the Police Chief? If so, what was the response? 3. Do you agree with the jury's six findings that the city has failed to adequately address the issue of unsanctioned and noisy frat parties? 4. Please feel free to include any other comments about the Grand Jury report. My deadline for this story is tomorrow at 11 am. I appreciate any time you can dedicate to my request. Best, Bulbul ––––– Bulbul Rajagopal (she/her) Staff Writer New Times Media Group PRINT · DIGITAL · MOBILE · TICKETING NEW TIMES San Luis Obispo County's News & Entertainment Weekly San Luis Obispo | (805) 592-0412 | www.NewTimesSLO.com SUN Northern Santa Barbara County's News & Entertainment Weekly Santa Maria | (805) 347-1968 | www.SantaMariaSun.com MY805TIX Your Local Ticketing Solution 478 From:Szentesi, Whit Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 10:42 AM To:McDonald, Whitney Cc:Hermann, Greg; Dietrick, Christine; Scott, Rick; Wallace, Christine; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:RE: Media request: New Times SLO I’m sure you all saw this: https://www.newtimesslo.com/news/grand-jury-report-finds-slo-failed-to-handle-illegal-frat- parties-16881846 Plus, the Shredder: https://www.newtimesslo.com/opinion/double-secret-probation-16881857 Thanks, Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 4:02 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO Importance: High Hi team, Here is a draft communications plan for your review: Draft_Comms Plan_Grand Jury Report Town Gown.docx To make sure we’re all on the same page and agree with this approach, I’ll set up a Teams meeting for us all to review and discuss it together. Sound good? Thanks, Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me 479 From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 11:26 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Media request: New Times SLO Importance: High FYI, the response below has been sent to Bulbul. Whitney, I’m happy to also send this statement via BCC to the City Council. Or would you prefer to do that? Greg and I are discussing next steps and working on a communications plan for how we can move forward to ensure that the City’s perspective and accurate information are made publicly available. Thanks, Whit Whitney Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager E wszentes@slocity.org C 805.440.5446 Stay informed by signing up for e-notifications Book a meeting with me From: Szentesi, Whit Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 11:23 AM To: Bulbul Rajagopal <brajagopal@newtimesslo.com> Subject: RE: Media request: New Times SLO Hi Bulbul, Here is the City’s statement in response to your questions below: The City is aware of the Grand Jury’s recent report and will be providing a detailed response within the required 90-day period. The City has fully cooperated with the Grand Jury with senior staff from multiple departments (including the Police Chief, Police Department Public Affairs Manager, Community Development Director, Code Enforcement staff, City Manager, and Council Members) testifying before the Grand Jury in addition to providing significant amounts of information in response to requests. We are concerned with both the factual inaccuracies (see the attached, which was also sent to the Grand Jury on June 20, 2025) and conclusions drawn in the report. It’s important to know that the City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of innovative approaches to addressing neighborhood wellness and we will continue to work with our community to maintain and improve our neighborhoods. This requires everyone to do their part, work together, and abide by the laws our community has in place. Our balanced approach includes education, collaboration, and law enforcement and we are proud to have a demonstrated history of using constructive feedback to identify areas of concern and respond to issues as they arise. More details about our response to the Grand Jury report will be made available soon. It’s my understanding that you sent the same questions to several staff members and all City Council members. Please note that this statement is intended to provide our collective response on behalf of the City. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to reach out to me directly. My cell phone number is (805) 440- 5446 and you can also send any questions or requests for information at communications@slocity.org. 480 Thanks, Whit From: Bulbul Rajagopal <brajagopal@newtimesslo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 11:10 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Media request: New Times SLO Hi Whitney, I hope you're doing well. I'm working on a story about the Grand Jury report about the city's handling of frat parties in neighborhoods. I have a few questions about its findings and recommendations. 1. Are you prepared to work on the Grand Jury's recommendations to identify illegal frats, adopt more uniform conditions for CUPs, and create more formal guidelines on how SLOPD should respond to the jury and other oversight bodies? 2. The report also alleged that SLOPD didn't cooperate with the Grand Jury. Have you addressed this with the Police Chief? If so, what was the response? 3. Do you agree with the jury's six findings that the city has failed to adequately address the issue of unsanctioned and noisy frat parties? 4. Please feel free to include any other comments about the Grand Jury report. My deadline for this story is tomorrow at 11 am. I appreciate any time you can dedicate to my request. Best, Bulbul ––––– Bulbul Rajagopal (she/her) Staff Writer New Times Media Group PRINT · DIGITAL · MOBILE · TICKETING NEW TIMES San Luis Obispo County's News & Entertainment Weekly San Luis Obispo | (805) 592-0412 | www.NewTimesSLO.com SUN Northern Santa Barbara County's News & Entertainment Weekly Santa Maria | (805) 347-1968 | www.SantaMariaSun.com MY805TIX Your Local Ticketing Solution 481 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 9:13 AM To:Mezzapesa, John; Sheats, Steven Subject:FW: Illegal fraternity 1271-1275 stratford contact from City of San Luis Obispo, CA Hi, This woman also called me, can you tell me the code enforcement history of the site so I know what has happened there – she will ask. Can you also open a code enforcement case from this complaint, if one is not already open for illegal fraternity complaint? Thanks! Timmi From: City of San Luis Obispo, CA <slocitywebmaster@enotify.visioninternet.com> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 7:50 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Illegal fraternity 1271-1275 stratford contact from City of San Luis Obispo, CA Message submitted from the <City of San Luis Obispo, CA> website. Site Visitor Name: I live illegal fraternity at 1271-1275 Stafford st,Slo. This us a R-1 residential zone. Alpha Kappa Psi does not have a conditional use permit. I have contacted SLo code enforcement for the mountains of rotting garbage,beer cans ,rats,raccoons, opossums and swarms of flies. Additionally, I have asked the tenants to stop urinating openly in my full view. The tenants park illegally in Kentucky alley blocking trash trucks and emergency vehicles. They have been ticketed but the illega l parking continues. Certainly, there are more tenants than available parking. 482 From:James, Dillon Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 8:58 AM To:McDonald, Whitney; Dietrick, Christine; Szentesi, Whit Subject:KSBY CUP article KSBY article states that the "County's" Planning Commission revoked the CUP, by the way . . . (in byline) https://www.ksby.com/san-luis-obispo/another-cal-poly-fraternity-has-conditional-use-permit-revoked Another Cal Poly fraternity has conditional use permit revoked Members of the Greek community spoke in defense of the fraternity and tried to keep their conditional use permit, but ultimately, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to revoke the permit. www.ksby.com Dillon James pronouns he/him/his Administration Executive Assistant City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E djames@slocity.org T 805.781.7123 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 483 From:Symens, Sadie Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 8:54 AM To:Holcomb, Kelly; McDonald, Whitney; Dietrick, Christine; Collins, Scott; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Corey, Tyler; Mezzapesa, John; Scott, Rick; Amoroso, Brian; Mickel, Fred; Wallace, Christine Subject:Fraternity issue update from City Attorney's Office Good morning all, In an effort to keep this group in the loop of all things fraternity, we wanted to provide you with an update on recent Administrative Citation appeals, CUP revocations involving fraternities, and Public Records Act Requests. There is a lot of information below, and this is for awareness only so feel free to review at your convenience. Please reach out with any questions. Administrative Citation Appeals  Three appeals of noise violation citations issued to fraternities on June 19 th were upheld o 280 California Blvd (Alpha Epsilon Pi) o 1327 E. Foothill Blvd – Beta Theta Pi (two citations issued for noise violations on 6/19)  This fraternity has never had a valid use permit for this location but is in the process of obtaining one. Conditional Use Permit Revocations  The Planning Commission revoked the Conditional Use Permits for Delta Chi (1236 Monte Vista) and Sigma Nu (1304 Foothill Blvd/190 Crandall Way) on June 11th o Delta Chi timely appealed the revocation on 6/20 (hearing date not set)  The Planning Commission revoked the Conditional Use Permit for Delta Upsilon (720 Foothill Blvd.) on June 25th o Staff anticipates an appeal of this revocation. Planning Commission action on Grand Jury Report  The Planning Commission has been made aware of their role in responding to the Grand Jury report. They will hear staff’s recommendations on response in a September meeting. PRRs related to fraternities for the last 18 months. Links are to the Clerk’s internal Laserfiche folders, which contain produced records and correspondence. Please let me know if you have any troubles accessing these. 2024 PRR24059 Walker - Noise calls for 348/350 Hathway & 1908 Loomis https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=189071 PRR24170 Walker - SLOPD calls for fraternity addresses https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=194704 PRR24179 Walker - Special event permits https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=195027 PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence/records 11/8/23 - present https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=199481 PRR24285 Walker - Noise calls at multiple properties https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=200078 484 PRR24328 Dittenber - Records Regarding Fraternities Jan 2022 to Current https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=201572 2025 PRR25089 Jones - St Fratty's Day Data https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=205905 PRR25095 Coetzee - Records relating to "No Park/Tow" signs https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=206125 PRR25098 Garza - St. Patty's Day and SEZ Information https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=206242 PRR25099 Jones - St. Fratty's Enforcement Costs https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=206251 PRR25110 Shapiro - St. Fratty's Enforcement cost & recovery https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=207007 PRR25146 Hanson - St. Fratty's Day Data 2024 and 2025 https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=208601 PRR25162 Walker - Early Removal Program records https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=209000 PRR25189 Luo - Delta Upsilon Use Permit Records https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=210705 Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org 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. 485 From: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 4:24 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Confidential: Grand Jury report on Town & Gown issued PDF is attached. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Holcomb, Kelly Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 4:07 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <SSymens@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Confidential: Grand Jury report on Town & Gown issued Of course. I’ll remove any remaining comment threads (and anything else I spot) and send you a clean PDF. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 4:04 PM To: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Confidential: Grand Jury report on Town & Gown issued Hi everyone, First, THANK YOU!!!! This is an amazing work product to pull together in less than a week; I am so grateful for your hard work and support. Second, I have reviewed and made edits to the document and I think it is now ready to finalize. Kelly, are by chance able to scrub it for anything we might not want it to contain and turn it into a PDF? (I ran it through spell check and accepted all changes.) I can then send it via email. Thank you, all!! Whitney Whitney McDonald pronouns (she/hers) City Manager 486 City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E WMcDonal@slocity.org T 805.781.7114 C 805.550.8349 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 5:03 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Confidential: Grand Jury report on Town & Gown issued The content that was provided in May for the potential “fact check” response has now been incorporated into the chart. 20250618_Memo to GJ_Town & Gown.docx I reoriented the pages to landscape to allow our response column to be wider, but otherwise have no further adjustments to make. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Holcomb, Kelly Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 4:25 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <SSymens@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Confidential: Grand Jury report on Town & Gown issued Folks – I’ve been directed to incorporate most if not all of the content you provided to the “fact check” response. I’ll start working on that now and let you know when it’s been combined. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Holcomb, Kelly Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 4:00 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott 487 <SCollins@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <SSymens@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Confidential: Grand Jury report on Town & Gown issued Sorry for the delay. I had a few distractions but the rough draft of the chart is ready. I still need to pull material that w as referenced as being in the earlier response to the “fact check” request, but everything that was noted in the draft report itself should now be pulled over. 20250618_Memo to GJ_Town & Gown.docx Highlighted language was just pasted in. It was either questions that still need an answer or rough language that I though it best for someone more knowledgeable to refine. More can be added, and things can be removed however anyone sees fit so I’ve turned on track changes just to manage those contributions. If my assistance is needed to further move material over, please let me know, but otherwise I will assume everyone will return to making direct edits/contributions to the chart. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Holcomb, Kelly Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 11:11 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <SSymens@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Confidential: Grand Jury report on Town & Gown issued All – I am going to begin moving the flagged issues into a chart, so will turn on track changes in the Word document of the report so I know if anything new is added. Once the chart is ready, I’ll let you all know and the accurate/contradictory information column can be filled in. I’ll transfer over anything that has already been provided. The chart should be ready to start working on after lunch. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 1:53 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Confidential: Grand Jury report on Town & Gown issued Importance: High 488 Thank you, Christine and Kelly Here’s the plan, everyone. Please go into the word version of the report and identify any of the factual statements that are incorrect via comments. Kelly will then compile those statements into a table that will include a column for the corrected facts, which you will be tagged in to help fill out. I have asked the Grand Jury for a week to provide this information, though they haven’t agreed to this yet. With this timeline in mind, please review the word version and tag the incorrect statements in comments by the end of the day tomorrow. We will then aim to complete the table and send the factual corrections to the Grand Jury by Friday. Thank you, all! Whitney Whitney McDonald pronouns (she/hers) City Manager City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E WMcDonal@slocity.org T 805.781.7114 C 805.550.8349 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 1:37 PM To: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Cc: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Confidential: Grand Jury report on Town & Gown issued I converted and saved a word version for easier collective comments/editing here as sell: 2025 Grand Jury Word version.docx From: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 11:31 AM To: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Cc: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Confidential: Grand Jury report on Town & Gown issued Good morning, Christine asked that you all be linked to the “early release” materials issued by the Grand Jury: 489 2025 June, Town & Gown Report As noted in the “Agency 2Day Advance” letter, the information remains confidential for two business days, so please maintain the confidentiality until the report is made public. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Holcomb, Kelly Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2025 2:31 PM To: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <SSymens@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Scott, Rick <rscott@slocity.org>; Amoroso, Brian <bamoroso@slocity.org>; Mickel, Fred <fmickel@slocity.org>; Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org> Cc: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: Confidential: Review and Response Needed, urgent deadline June 4th Importance: High Good afternoon, The people on this email have been given access to a draft response to the SLO County Grand Jury. 2025 May, Fact Check Requests Please review, edit, and comply with the confidentiality requirements as described in the document. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 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. 490 From:Zion, Sarah Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 8:21 AM To:Symens, Sadie; Wooten, Eric; Holcomb, Kelly Subject:RE: Frat PRRs Yes, the hearing officer just sent them last night. All three appeals, for addresses 280 California and 1327 E Foothill, were upheld. I can send the written decision by the hearing officer shortly, I’ll be getting the decision notices out today. From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 7:50 AM To: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org>; Wooten, Eric <ewooten@slocity.org>; Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Frat PRRs Sarah – do we have decisions on the citation appeals? From: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 4:17 PM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Wooten, Eric <ewooten@slocity.org>; Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Frat PRRs For the appeals, I want to wait to send that information until the hearing officer has provided his written decision. He verbally told us that he was planning on upholding the citations, but he could change in mind when writing the decision. The hearing officer should be sending them to me next week, as we have 10 days to send out the decisions, but I don’t know what day. From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 4:12 PM To: Wooten, Eric <ewooten@slocity.org>; Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Frat PRRs Okay. Let’s plan to send out an email with all that next week, to give them all a bit of a breather from responding to the GJ report 뇤눎눐눑눒눏 From: Wooten, Eric <ewooten@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 4:06 PM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Frat PRRs I think CUP definitely. Sarah was also going to do citation appeals. We heard 3 frat noise appeals yesterday (all denied). From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 4:00 PM To: Wooten, Eric <ewooten@slocity.org>; Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Frat PRRs Thanks, Eric. Do any of you remember what else we were supposed to be updating the internal Grand Jury group on other than these PRRs? Was it the CUP revocations? 491 From: Wooten, Eric <ewooten@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2025 3:16 PM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: Frat PRRs Here’s a list of the PRRs related to fraternities for the last 18 months. I’m linking out to the Clerk’s internal Laserfiche folders, as it contains produced records and correspondence. A good portion of these are related to St. Fratty’s. 2024 PRR24059 Walker - Noise calls for 348/350 Hathway & 1908 Loomis https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=189071 PRR24170 Walker - SLOPD calls for fraternity addresses https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=194704 PRR24179 Walker - Special event permits https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=195027 PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence/records 11/8/23 - present https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=199481 PRR24285 Walker - Noise calls at multiple properties https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=200078 PRR24328 Dittenber - Records Regarding Fraternities Jan 2022 to Current https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=201572 2025 PRR25089 Jones - St Fratty's Day Data https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=205905 PRR25095 Coetzee - Records relating to "No Park/Tow" signs https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=206125 PRR25098 Garza - St. Patty's Day and SEZ Information https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=206242 PRR25099 Jones - St. Fratty's Enforcement Costs https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=206251 PRR25110 Shapiro - St. Fratty's Enforcement cost & recovery https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=207007 PRR25146 Hanson - St. Fratty's Day Data 2024 and 2025 https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=208601 PRR25162 Walker - Early Removal Program records https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=209000 PRR25189 Luo - Delta Upsilon Use Permit Records https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=210705 Eric Wooten Paralegal 492 City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E ewooten@slocity.org T 805.781.7139 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. 493 From:Symens, Sadie Sent:Thursday, June 26, 2025 7:50 AM To:Zion, Sarah; Wooten, Eric; Holcomb, Kelly Subject:RE: Frat PRRs Sarah – do we have decisions on the citation appeals? From: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 4:17 PM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Wooten, Eric <ewooten@slocity.org>; Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Frat PRRs For the appeals, I want to wait to send that information until the hearing officer has provided his written decision. He verbally told us that he was planning on upholding the citations, but he could change in mind when writing the decision. The hearing officer should be sending them to me next week, as we have 10 days to send out the decisions, but I don’t know what day. From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 4:12 PM To: Wooten, Eric <ewooten@slocity.org>; Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Frat PRRs Okay. Let’s plan to send out an email with all that next week, to give them all a bit of a breather from responding to the GJ report 뇤눎눐눑눒눏 From: Wooten, Eric <ewooten@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 4:06 PM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Frat PRRs I think CUP definitely. Sarah was also going to do citation appeals. We heard 3 frat noise appeals yesterday (all denied). From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 4:00 PM To: Wooten, Eric <ewooten@slocity.org>; Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Frat PRRs Thanks, Eric. Do any of you remember what else we were supposed to be updating the internal Grand Jury group on other than these PRRs? Was it the CUP revocations? From: Wooten, Eric <ewooten@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2025 3:16 PM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: Frat PRRs Here’s a list of the PRRs related to fraternities for the last 18 months. I’m linking out to the Clerk’s internal Laserfiche folders, as it contains produced records and correspondence. A good portion of these are related to St. Fratty’s. 494 2024 PRR24059 Walker - Noise calls for 348/350 Hathway & 1908 Loomis https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=189071 PRR24170 Walker - SLOPD calls for fraternity addresses https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=194704 PRR24179 Walker - Special event permits https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=195027 PRR24265 Walker - Fraternity correspondence/records 11/8/23 - present https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=199481 PRR24285 Walker - Noise calls at multiple properties https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=200078 PRR24328 Dittenber - Records Regarding Fraternities Jan 2022 to Current https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=201572 2025 PRR25089 Jones - St Fratty's Day Data https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=205905 PRR25095 Coetzee - Records relating to "No Park/Tow" signs https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=206125 PRR25098 Garza - St. Patty's Day and SEZ Information https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=206242 PRR25099 Jones - St. Fratty's Enforcement Costs https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=206251 PRR25110 Shapiro - St. Fratty's Enforcement cost & recovery https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=207007 PRR25146 Hanson - St. Fratty's Day Data 2024 and 2025 https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=208601 PRR25162 Walker - Early Removal Program records https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=209000 PRR25189 Luo - Delta Upsilon Use Permit Records https://slolf.slocity.org/laserfiche/Browse.aspx?repo=CityClerk#?id=210705 Eric Wooten Paralegal City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E ewooten@slocity.org T 805.781.7139 slocity.org 495 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. 1 Subject:Fraternity use permit re-review (DU) Location:919 Conference Room 1, Main Lobby Start:Thu 4/17/2025 1:00 PM End:Thu 4/17/2025 1:30 PM Show Time As:Tentative Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Not yet responded Organizer:Patino, Mallory Required Attendees:Wade Spriggs <wadespriggs808@gmail.com>; Mezzapesa, John Call Handling Mode 2:2 Meeting to be held at Community Development Department at 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA in Conference Room 1. 1 Subject:Fraternity use permit re-review (DU) - virtual Location:Microsoft Teams Meeting Start:Thu 4/17/2025 1:00 PM End:Thu 4/17/2025 1:30 PM Show Time As:Tentative Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Not yet responded Organizer:Patino, Mallory Required Attendees:Wade Spriggs ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams Need help? Join the meeting now Meeting Dial in by phone +1 209-645-4165,,669385521# United States, Stockton Find a local number Phone conference ID: For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN ________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Subject:Inspection (follow-up) Location:1236 Monte Vista Pl (1236 Monte Vista Pl, San Luis Obispo, California 93405, United States) Start:Wed 7/9/2025 2:30 PM End:Wed 7/9/2025 3:00 PM Show Time As:Tentative Recurrence:(none) Organizer:Beres, Jason Required Attendees:anthony@california-west.com Jason Beres Fire Inspector III Fire Department Fire Prevention 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5240 E jberes@slocity.org T 805.594.8021 C 805.431.3062 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams Need help? Join the meeting now Meeting ID: Dial in by phone +1 209-645-4165,,850848042# United States, Stockton Find a local number Phone conference ID: 2 For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN ________________________________________________________________________________  2160 Santa Barbara Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401   Phone: (805) 783 - 7780 Fax: (805) 543 - 8019 Fire Department Email: FDGeneral@slocity.org    Hours: Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Business / Occupant:DELTA CHI Address:1236 Monte Vista Work Phone:805-543-9119 Contact Name:, California West Email:anthony@california-west.com Date Completed:06/25/2025 Inspected By:Beres, Jason Passed:No Violation Count:5 San Luis Obispo City Fire Inspection Report Fire Department Information Business / Occupant Information Inspection Information Thank you for your cooperation with San Luis Obispo City Fire in keeping your business and our community safe! Correct the cited violation(s) by the "Reinspection Date" listed below to avoid further enforcement action including, but not limited to, chargeable re-inspection and/or Administrative Citation. You may request a review of the cited violations by the Department Director [Fire Chief ] within 5 days of report issuance if noted violations do not create an immediate danger to health and safety (SLO M.C. 1.24.090). If you have any questions, please contact our Inspection Line at 805/783-7775. Inspection Notes:Note: Follow-up (second) inspection was conducted by SLOFD on 06/25/25 with the fraternity representative. Property management was notified in advance of this inspection. The initial inspection was conducted on 06/11/2025. The following items were evaluated and found to be corrected during the second inspection: 1) Coordinate removal of combustible storage inside the electrical room with the property management. ***Update: Combustible storage (i.e. paint cans and LPG cylinders have been removed from this location. See attached records. *** 2) Discontinue use of the electrical cord for temporary lighting (Unit No.11) and plug lighting into an electrical outlet ***Update: Extension cord has been removed from service and lighting has been plugged into an electrical outlet. *** 3) Remove storage behind the dryer inside the laundry room. *** Update: Storage has been removed from behind the dryer appliance. Tenants have been requested to cleanup additional storage inside the laundry room. *** 4) Repair (or replace) wallboard inside the laundry room. *** Update: Wallboard has been repaired behind the water heater appliance and associated vent piping. See attached records. *** *Please note: If a third inspection is required due to non-compliance, a fire-inspection fee of $271 may be charged for that inspection, and every inspection thereafter until compliance is obtained. Failure to comply may result in a misdemeanor citation and an appearance by you in court.Page 1 of 12 The following items were evaluated and found to require additional correction during the second inspection: 5) *** Electrical plug for the water heater appliance was found partially unplugged during inspection. Tenant has properly plugged the appliance into an existing wall outlet and this appliance appears to be operational. Yellow "caution" tag was found affixed to the water heater appliance cord; property management was notified following inspection at approximately 14:08 hours and requested to follow-up on this item prior to the close of business. Electrical wiring found exposed inside carport (space No.1) during inspection. Property management is requested to provide an electrical cover plate in this location. If required by the scope of work, please contact a licensed electrician. *** 6) *** Excess storage (i.e. mattress, trash, etc.) were found along south facing side of the property. Tenants have been requested to clean up and properly dispose of storage with the local sanitation district. *** 7) Coordinate repair of the fire alarm system and provide a current record of fire alarm monitoring agreement. ***Update: Fire alarm control panel was found to be in an operable condition during inspection. Updated fire alarm monitoring is pending from the fire alarm monitoring service. Any modification(s) to the fire detection system (i.e. cellular communication or panel upgrade) will require a construction permit from the City Building Department prior to installation (CFC 105.6.6). ***  Note: Upon completion of item No. 7, please submit an updated fire alarm monitoring agreement. A follow-up inspection for item(s) No.5-6 will be conducted in approximately 14 business days. If completed prior to this deadline, please contact the SLOFD Inspection Line. Failure to complete items No. 5-6 will result in a reinspection fee of $221.00 for this property. *Please note: If a third inspection is required due to non-compliance, a fire-inspection fee of $271 may be charged for that inspection, and every inspection thereafter until compliance is obtained. Failure to comply may result in a misdemeanor citation and an appearance by you in court.Page 2 of 12 Violations Code Description Comments Reinspection Date Repaired Date 907.8 Inspection, testing and maintenance. The maintenance and testing schedules and procedures for fire alarm and fire detection systems shall be in accordance with Sections 907.8.1 through 907.8.4 and NFPA 72. Records of inspection, testing and maintenance shall be maintained. Note: Per City records, fire alarm inspection was last conducted on 03/06/2025, License No. 848019. See attached records. Fire alarm control panel was found in an impaired condition (i.e. communication failure) during inspection and unable to determine if remote annunciation panel (main entrance) is currently operational. Junction box with low-voltage electrical wiring was found uncovered at the front gate and will require repair (CFC 907.8). Property management is directed to coordinate repair of the items noted above and provide a current fire alarm monitoring agreement for this property. Any modification(s) to the fire detection system (i.e. cellular communication or panel upgrade) will require a construction permit from the City Building Department prior to installation (CFC 105.6.6). 07/14/2025 610.1. 2 Maintenance. The lint trap, mechanical and heating components, and the exhaust duct system of a clothes dryer shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s operating instructions to prevent the accumulation of lint or debris that prevents the exhaust of air and products of combustion. Note: Combustible materials (i.e. plastic tarp and clothing) were found in direct contact with the dryer motor and exhaust vent during inspection. Tenants are requested to remove storage in this location (CFC 610.1.2). 06/25/2025 06/25/2025 13:45:00 315.3. 3 Equipment rooms. Combustible material shall not be stored in boiler rooms, mechanical rooms, electrical equipment rooms or in fire command centers as specified in Section 508.1.5. Note: Paint cans & LPG (propane) was found stored inside the electrical room (No.4) during inspection. Gas can was found under adjacent stairs. Property management is directed to coordinate the removal of storage in this location and provide a metal storage cabinet in an exterior location (CFC 315.3.3 Equipment Rooms). 06/25/2025 06/25/2025 13:45:00 *Please note: If a third inspection is required due to non-compliance, a fire-inspection fee of $271 may be charged for that inspection, and every inspection thereafter until compliance is obtained. Failure to comply may result in a misdemeanor citation and an appearance by you in court.Page 3 of 12 Code Description Comments Reinspection Date Repaired Date 304.1. 2 Vegetation. Weeds, grass, vines or other growth that is capable of being ignited and endangering property, shall be cut down and removed by the owner or occupant of the premises. Vegetation clearance requirements in wildland- urban interface areas shall be in accordance with Chapter 49. [California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, §3.07(b)] Clearances. (b)Ground Clearance. The space surrounding every building or structure shall be maintained in accordance with the following: Any person that owns, leases, controls, operates or maintains any building or structure in, upon or adjoining any mountainous area or forest-covered lands, brush covered lands or grass- covered lands, or any land which is covered with flammable material, shall at all times do all of the following: (1)Maintain around and adjacent to such building or structure a firebreak made by removing and clearing away, for a distance of not less than 30 feet on each side thereof or to the property line, whichever is nearer, all flammable vegetation or other combustible growth. This section does not apply to single specimens of trees, ornamental shrubbery or similar plants which are used as ground cover, if they do not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from the native growth to any building or structure. (2)Maintain around and adjacent to any such building or structure additional fire protection or firebreak made by removing all bush, flammable vegetation or combustible growth which is located from 30 feet to 100 feet from such building or structure or to the property line, whichever is nearer, as may be required by the enforcing agency if he finds that, because of extra hazardous conditions, a firebreak of only 30 feet around such building or structure is not sufficient to provide reasonable fire safety. Grass and other vegetation located more than 30 feet from such building or structure and less than 18 inches in height above the ground may be maintained where necessary to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion. (3)Remove that portion of any tree which extends within 10 feet of the outlet of any chimney or stovepipe. (4)Cut and remove all dead or dying portions of trees located adjacent to or overhanging any building. (5)Maintain the roof of any structure free of leaves, needles or other dead Note: Dead grass noted on the north facing side of the property will be required to be mowed. As a general reminder the City of SLO weed abatement deadline was 06/10/25. Property management is requested to coordinate the removal of excess storage in this location and coordinate mowing of vegetation (CFC 304.1.2). 07/14/2025 06/25/2025 13:45:00 *Please note: If a third inspection is required due to non-compliance, a fire-inspection fee of $271 may be charged for that inspection, and every inspection thereafter until compliance is obtained. Failure to comply may result in a misdemeanor citation and an appearance by you in court.Page 4 of 12 Code Description Comments Reinspection Date Repaired Date vegetative growth. (6)Provide and maintain at all times a screen over the outlet of every chimney or stovepipe that is attached to any fireplace, stove or other device that burns any solid or liquid fuel. The screen shall be constructed of nonflammable material with openings of not more than 1/2 inch in size. (7) Vegetation around all applicable buildings and structures shall be maintained in accordance with the following laws and regulations: (A)Public Resources Code Section 4291. (B)California Code of Regulations Title 14 - Natural Resources, Division 1.5 - Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, “General Guideline to Create Defensible Space.” (C)California Government Code Section 51182. (D)California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9. 603.2 Abatement of unsafe conditions and electrical hazards. Conditions that constitute an electrical shock or fire hazard shall be abated. Note: Temporary electrical wiring (i.e. extension cord) was found plugged into an electrical power strip on the back patio of Unit No.11. Portable lighting was found plugged into the power strip and the extension cord was found with damaged electrical wiring. Tenants have been directed to discontinue use of this extension cord and plug all temporary lighting into an electrical outlet (CFC 603.2). 06/25/2025 Inspection Documents *Please note: If a third inspection is required due to non-compliance, a fire-inspection fee of $271 may be charged for that inspection, and every inspection thereafter until compliance is obtained. Failure to comply may result in a misdemeanor citation and an appearance by you in court.Page 5 of 12 Title: image Title: image *Please note: If a third inspection is required due to non-compliance, a fire-inspection fee of $271 may be charged for that inspection, and every inspection thereafter until compliance is obtained. Failure to comply may result in a misdemeanor citation and an appearance by you in court.Page 6 of 12 Title: image *Please note: If a third inspection is required due to non-compliance, a fire-inspection fee of $271 may be charged for that inspection, and every inspection thereafter until compliance is obtained. Failure to comply may result in a misdemeanor citation and an appearance by you in court.Page 7 of 12 Title: image *Please note: If a third inspection is required due to non-compliance, a fire-inspection fee of $271 may be charged for that inspection, and every inspection thereafter until compliance is obtained. Failure to comply may result in a misdemeanor citation and an appearance by you in court.Page 8 of 12 Title: image Title: image *Please note: If a third inspection is required due to non-compliance, a fire-inspection fee of $271 may be charged for that inspection, and every inspection thereafter until compliance is obtained. Failure to comply may result in a misdemeanor citation and an appearance by you in court.Page 9 of 12 Title: image *Please note: If a third inspection is required due to non-compliance, a fire-inspection fee of $271 may be charged for that inspection, and every inspection thereafter until compliance is obtained. Failure to comply may result in a misdemeanor citation and an appearance by you in court.Page 10 of 12 Title: image *Please note: If a third inspection is required due to non-compliance, a fire-inspection fee of $271 may be charged for that inspection, and every inspection thereafter until compliance is obtained. Failure to comply may result in a misdemeanor citation and an appearance by you in court.Page 11 of 12 Title: image Violation Documents *Please note: If a third inspection is required due to non-compliance, a fire-inspection fee of $271 may be charged for that inspection, and every inspection thereafter until compliance is obtained. Failure to comply may result in a misdemeanor citation and an appearance by you in court. Page 12 of 12